Sie sind auf Seite 1von 179

NAGARJUNA

Mulamadhyamakakarika

6 translations

Compiled by Frederic Lecut


What this is, why I did it and how to use it.

1 - What this is

I took 6 translations of Nagarjuna’s famous Mulamadhyamakakarika (hereafter “MMK”) and put them
side by side. The book is composed of 27 chapters, each chapter includes several verses. I put side by
side the texts 6 translations, verse by verse, so you can read on one row the 6 different translations of
this verse.
I did not include any of the translators’ comment
The numbers I used : first number is the chapter number, second number is the verse within the
chapter : 20.2. means : Verse 2 of Chapter 10.

2 - Why I did it

I am a Zen Buddhist. Zen does not requires to spend too much time studying Buddhist scriptures, but I
love books and the written word.
I got interested in Nagajurna’s MMK when I read an article online by Gudo Nishijima about what he
perceives as a deep connection between Nagarjuna - writing in India during the 2 nd century - and
Master Dogen writing in Japan 1000 years later.

So I started researching the MMK. Online, and on paper.

There are many English translations of Nagajurna’s MMK. These translations are wildly different.
There are many reasons for that.

1. Translations were made from different languages, namely :

• Sanskrit
• Tibetan
• Chinese

Nagarjuna originally wrote his book in India and Sanskrit around the late 2 nd century AD.
It was later translated to Tibetan and/or Chinese. Sometimes not directly. Some versions may have
been translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan, then to Chinese, some could have followed the other way
around.

2. Some of the translators have no practical clue what they are talking about.
Let me explain : When I was studying engineering, I had some brilliant professors with PhD in
mechanical sciences or applied thermodynamics. These men could not have held a hammer, or God
forbid a wood chisel without creating lots of damages around them. They were extremely
knowledgeable in their very narrow field of expertise, but their knowledge was quite useless (or even
down right dangerous) in everyday life.
Many of these translations were made by scholars who are certainly very good at Sanskrit, Tibetan
and Chinese, but may not be Buddhist themselves.

Those Buddhist scholars know a great amount of things I have no use for.

As for actual Buddhist teachers, you would think they would try to get down to earth and provide a
useful translation, but I have not been convinced by them either.

It is basically very disappointing. It feels as if there is this great story written in this book I can’t read
it for I don’t know the language. I really want to hear that story, because it is about a problem I have
had since before the day as was born (that’s what they say !), and I can’t read the damn book. And
then there are many people out there telling me they can read it, will translate and explain it to me,
but the fools don’t make any sense…

Being on my own and having no time or intention to learn Sanskrit, Chinese or Tibetan. I had to be
creative and do something quite unconventional...

Think of democracy. There is wisdom in crowds. Even if all the voters are stupid, the result of the vote
of a very great number of them will likely determine the best outcome for the group. Among all these
translators, it is possible than none of them has it right, but if you consult several of them, side by
side, you may get a more accurate understanding than any of them has. If you do not believe me, ask
yourself how the big social media platform make their money.

This is what I am trying to use by putting side by side many translations.

3 - How to use this


1. Read the various translations of one verse. Don’t try to analyze and think too much about
them, just impregnate yourself with the various renditions of one verse, or one chapter,
without using any critical thinking.
2. Meditate, not on the text, but try to empty your mind, to let something happen, if it wants to !
3. Something might come up. Or not, maybe at that time, maybe later, when you are in the middle
of something else, doing the dishes, driving…

This way of studying is not conventional. Sometimes it works.

I hope it helps you too.


NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika

6 translations

Chapter 1

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the Examination of Examination of Investigation of
1 Analysis of Conditions Causality
Reliable facts Conditions Conditions Conditions
Never, nowhere do any The reliable facts are] No existents Neither from itself nor No thing anywhere is Nothing whatever
beings occur arisen not that which is whatsoever are evident from another, Nor from ever born from itself, arises. Not from
from themselves, from subjective [thoughts], anywhere that are both, Nor without a from something else, itself, not from
others, from both or not that which is arisen from themselves, cause, Does anything from both or without a another, not from
from no cause. objective [sense from another, from whatever, anywhere cause. both itself and
stimuli], not a mixture both, or from a non- arise. another, and not
of the two, but never cause. without a cause
1.1 unreasonable at all.
Phenomena are just
recognized as they are,
and existence as we
conceive it never exists
anywhere; it is just
nonexistence.

There are only four The four reliable facts There are only four There are four There are four There are just four
conditions, namely hetu are reason, the external conditions, namely, conditions: efficient conditions: Causes, conditions of the
(cause), alambana world, the present primary condition, condition; Percept- objects, immediate and existence of
(supporting condition), moment, and reality— objectively supporting object condition; dominant. There is no anything: efficient
anantaram (contiguous this world—which condition, immediately immediate condition; fifth. cause, supporting
1.2 condition) and adhipati seems to be similar to contiguous condition, Dominant condition, condition,
(dominant condition). God. A fifth reliable fact and dominant just so. There is no fifth precipitating
There is no fifth never exists at all. condition. A fifth condition. condition, and
condition. condition does not dominant condition.
exist. There is no fifth
condition.
Indeed, no self-nature Subjective existence can The self-nature of The essence of entities The essence of things Among the four
1.3 (own-being, essence) of never be recognized in existents is not evident Is not present in the does not exist in conditions of the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 4


beings occurs in the miscellaneous in the conditions, etc. In conditions, etc ..If there conditions and so on. If existence of a thing,
conditions of beings. existences or in the the absence of self- is no essence, There can an own thing does not there is found no
Since self-nature is not reliable facts. nature, other-nature be no otherness- exist, an other thing substantial essence
present, other nature Phenomena are just too is not evident. essence. does not exist. [svabhava = self-
does not occur. recognized as they are, nature] of the thing.
and existence as we If things have no
conceive it never exists substantial essences,
anywhere; it is just then there can be no
nonexistence. real relations
between different
things.

Causal efficacy is not to Real action at the Activity is not Power to act does not There is no activity There are no causes
be associated with present moment is constituted of have conditions. There which has conditions. with conditions;
conditions, causal never an imitation of conditions nor is it not is no power to act There is no activity there are no causes
efficacy is not the reliable facts, so non-constituted of without conditions. which does not have without conditions.
associated with non- there is no possibility of conditions. Conditions There are no conditions conditions. There are no There are no
conditions, conditions an imitation of a are neither constituted without power to act. conditions which do not conditions without
are not associated with reliable fact being real nor non-constituted of Nor do any have the have activity, and none causes; there are no
1.4 causal efficacy or non- action. The reliable activity. power to act. which do have activity. conditions with
causal efficacy. facts are not different causes.
from real action, and
there exists something
real, which is very
similar to real action
itself.

1.5 What arises “depends” Conspicuous things and These are conditions, These give rise to those, Since something is born Things arise from
on these so-called phenomena are because depending So these are called in dependence upon conditions, but if
conditions. So long as manifesting themselves upon them these conditions. As long as them, then they are there is no arising,
there is no arising, how as this world, and that [others] arise. So long those do not come from known as “conditions”. aren't conditions not
are these not non- which is called “things as these [others] do not these, Why are these As long as it is not born, conditions?
conditions? and phenomena” are arise, why are they not not non-conditions? why are they not non-
just the reliable facts. non-conditions? conditions?
Inasmuch as that which
manifests itself shows
itself as things and
phenomena, that which
is different from the
reliable facts can never

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 5


really exist at all.
Neither being nor non- Either in the case of A condition of an effect For neither an existent It is impossible for There are no
being are associated something abstract or that is either non- nor a non-existent thing something that either conditions of
with conditions of in the case of existent or existent is Is a condition exists or not to have existing things, nor
usefulness. Of what something concrete, a not pro-per. Of what appropriate. If a thing is conditions. If it were are there conditions
[use] are conditions for reliable fact is never non-existent [effect] is non-existent, how could non-existent, of what of that which does
non-being? And to tied to any aim other a condition? Of what it have a condition? If a would they be the not exist. How can
whom [is there use] in than itself. It is use is a condition of the thing is already conditions? If it were the nonexistent have
conditions for being? impossible for an existent [effect)? existent, what would a existent, why would it a condition? If
1.6
abstract reliable fact to condition do? need conditions? something exists,
belong to something, does it need a
and it is also impossible condition?
for a concrete thing to
produce anything
relying upon a reliable
fact.

Whenever an event that When the real universe, Since a thing that is When neither existents When things cannot be If there are no
is existent, non- [which is] in fusion ·existent or non- nor Non-existents nor established as either existents, nor non-
existent, or both between the stable and existent or both. existent non-existents existent, non-existent existents, nor
existent and non- the unstable, or in existent and non- are established, How or both, how can one existent non-
existent does not fusion between the real existent is not could one propose a speak of an existents, how can
originate, how can a and the unreal, has not produced, how "productive cause?" If “establishing cause.” there be any causes?
cause that thus brings become clear, the pertinent in that there were one, it Such would be If there were a cause,
[events] about be universe, which should context' would a would be pointless. impossible. what would it cause?
1.7
reasonable? be clear, will never producing cause be?
become clear at all,
because [in that case]
even reason, which
should be perfectly
free, has been fixed
concretely.

This event that exists is When the real world is A thing that exists is An existent entity An existent If there are events
described as without a different from the indicated as being (mental episode) Has no phenomenon is clearly (for example, mental
supporting condition. external world [which is without objective object. Since a mental said to have no object at states) without
1.8 But where an event is superficially seen from support. When a thing episode is without an all. If the phenomenon supporting
without a supporting the materialistic is without objective object, How could there has no object, where conditions, why
condition, again, why viewpoint], the real rule support, for what be any percept- can the object exist? should we speak of
[talk of] a supporting of the universe will purpose is an objective condition? supporting

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 6


condition? manifest itself. When support? conditions at all?
we follow the real rule
of the universe, how is
it possible for the
external world to
manifest itself again at
any place at all?
When events do not When the rule of the When things are not Since things are not If phenomena are not If things do not begin
arise, cessation does universe has not yet arisen [from arisen, . Cessation is not born, it is invalid for to exist, then they
not happen. Hence manifested itself, the conditions], cessation is acceptable. Therefore, there to be cessation. cannot cease to
what condition is ability of self-regulation not appropriate. When an immediate condition Therefore, an exist. If things do not
suitable for a non- has not yet appeared. [a thing has] ceased, is not reasonable. If immediate [condition] is begin to exist, how
contiguous condition in When our ceaseless what is [it that serves something has ceased, unreasonable. What, can they have
cessation? mental functions have as] a condition? how could it be a having ceased, can also precipitating
1.9
not yet been regulated, Therefore, an condition? be a condition? conditions? If
the reliable facts are immediate condition is something has
also very vague. not proper. ceased to exist, how
can it be a condition
or cause of anything
else?

Since beings lacking In abstract existences or Since the existence of If things did not exist Because the existence If things have no
self-nature do not occur in erasing existents devoid of self- Without essence, The of essence-less things substantial essences,
as existence per se, this characteristics, reality is nature is not evident, phrase, "When this does not exist, it is then they have no
[statement] “when that not recognized, and so, the statement: "When exists so this will be," incorrect to say:“When real existence; and,
is, this comes to be” the simple fact that this that exists, this comes Would not be this exists, that arises.” in that case, the
1.10
does not obtain. real world exists never to be," will not be acceptable. statement, "This is
manifests itself appropriate. the cause or
condition of that," is
meaningless.

The effect is not in the A concrete result never The effect does not In the several or united There is no effect at all An effect cannot be
conditions either really exists in the exist in the conditions conditions The effect in the conditions found in a single
separately or together. accumulation of that are separated or cannot be found. How individually or together. cause or condition,
How could that which is separated things or in combined. Therefore, could something not in How can that which is nor can an effect be
1.11 not in the conditions be the reliable facts. How how can that which is the conditions Come not in the conditions found in all causes
from the conditions? is there even the not found in the from the conditions? itself be born from and conditions
slightest possibility for conditions come to 'be conditions? together. How can
the concrete fact of a from ·the conditions? something not found
result to exist among in causes and

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 7


miscellaneous reliable conditions arise from
facts? them?

Moreover, if the effect, In such a situation, If that effect, being However, if a If, although the effect is If an effect arises
non-existent in those something real or non-existent [in the nonexistent effect not there, it is born from causes or
[conditions], is set in something concrete conditions] were to Arises from these from those conditions, conditions in which it
motion from those goes forward following proceed from the conditions, Why does it why is an effect not does not pre-exist,
conditions, why is it not concrete things or conditions, why does it not arise From non- born from what are not then couldn't it arise
set in motion from no following the reliable not proceed from non- conditions? its conditions? from no causes or
conditions? facts. Even in that conditions? conditions at all?
1.12
which does not have any
relation with the
reliable facts, it is
impossible for a result
to begin any kind of real
action.

The effect is created by A result does not have The effect is made of If the effect's essence is Effects [are of] the If an effect is created
conditions, but the any power to destroy conditions, but the the conditions, But the nature of conditions. by its conditions, but
conditions are not reliable facts, and it also conditions are conditions don't have Conditions do not have the conditions are
created by themselves. does not have any themselves not self- their own essence, How own nature. How can not self-created, how
How can an effect power to destroy made. How can that could an effect whose those effects of what could the effect ever
created by conditions unreliable facts. When effect made of essence is the does not have own come to be?
be from what is not we deny the idea that conditions [arise] from conditions Come from nature [be of] the
1.13 created by itself? [what we call a] result what is not self-made? something that is nature of conditions?
really exists, where is it essenceless?
possible for us to find
the real world, which is
the fusion of the
reliable facts and the
unreliable facts?

The effect is created Therefore, a result An effect made either Therefore, neither with Therefore, [it does] not Therefore, effects
neither from conditions never injures the of conditions or of non- conditions as their have the nature of cannot arise from
nor from no conditions. reliable facts, and it conditions is, therefore, essence, Nor with non- conditions, nor is there causes or conditions,
How can an effect be never has any power at not evident. Because of conditions as their an effect with the nor can they arise
1.14 obtained from non- all even to destroy an the absence of the essence are there any nature of non- from non-causes or
existent conditions and unreliable fact. If we effect, where could effects. If there are no conditions. Since there non-conditions. If
no conditions? deny the idea that conditions or non- such effects, How could is no effect, what could there are no effects
results do not exist conditions be evident? conditions or non- [be its] non-conditions whatsoever, how can

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 8


really, how is it possible conditions be evident. or conditions? there be any causes
for us to find the real or conditions (or, for
world where we find that matter, any non-
the fusion between the causes or non-
reliable facts and the conditions)?
unreliable facts to exist
as it does in this world?

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 9


Chapter 2

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the
Analysis of Coming and Examination of “Gone” Investigations of
2 Moved and the Not- Examination of Motion What’s Happening ?
Going and “Not Gone” Coming and Going
Moved
What has already gone The memory of having What has been moved, What has been moved is Then there is no going What has already
is not what is going as gone in the past does in the first instance, is not moving. What has in what has gone; there happened is not now
much as what has not not actually go, as much not being moved. What not been moved is not is no going also in what happening. What has
yet gone is not what is as the thought of going has not been moved is moving. Apart from has not [yet] gone. not yet happened is
going. Separated from in the future never also not being moved. what has been moved Motion is unknowable not now happening.
what has already gone actually goes. The Separated from what and what has not been apart from what has What is now
2.1 and that which has not memory of having gone has been moved and has moved, Movement gone and not [yet] happening has not
yet gone, the present in the past, the thought not been moved, cannot be conceived. gone. already happened,
process of going does of going in the future, present moving is not nor has it not yet
not go. and even the fact of known. happened. Doesn't
going at the present this mean that
moment do not actually nothing can happen?
go.
Where there is moving When the concrete Where there is Where there is change, Where there is moving, What is happening is
there is going and it is in physical motion of movement, there is there is motion. Since there there is going. in the process of
the present process of hands and legs is going motion. For which there is change in the Furthermore, because happening now.
going. Moving is not in on, the motion of hands reason movement is in moving, And not in the moving is within motion What has already
what has already gone and legs always exists in the present moving, and moved or not-moved, -- and is neither gone happened and what
nor in what has not yet the concrete fact of not either in the moved Motion is in that which nor not [yet] gone, has not yet
gone, but in going. “going on” [at the or in the not moved, for is moving. therefore, there is going happened are not in
present moment]. When that reason motion is within motion. the process of
the motion of hands available in the present happening now.
2.2
and legs has departed moving.
from [the memory of]
“having gone” or [the
thought of] “not having
gone,” the motion of
going is always the
same as the fact of
“going on” [just at the
present moment].
How would this going of When just within the How appropriate would How would it be How can going be How is the
2.3 the present process of fact of “going” a real act be the movement. of acceptable For motion possible within motion? happening of the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 10


going take place? of “going” is actually the present moving? to be in the mover? Because motion that is now-happening
Indeed, whenever there done as a real act of For, the non-movement When it is not moving, it not going is impossible. possible? If there is
is no going, the present
“going,” even though in the present moving is is not acceptable To call no happening at all,
process of going does we may express such a certainly not it a mover. then the now-
not take place. situation with words, it appropriate. happening cannot
is impossible for the happen.
fact to be described
with words. When one
of the two—the fact of
going on, or real action
itself—is really going
on, it is impossible for
us to describe the real
fact completely with
words.
His whose present The idea that the real For him who asserts the For whomever there is For whomever there is What is happening
process of going is a act of going is included movement of the motion in the mover, going within motion, for now might not
consequence of going, in the fact of going is present moving, it There could be non- him it will follow that happen, but it seems
has already gone attached to the one- follows that there could motion Evident in the there [could be] no that what is
without the present sided idea relating with be present moving mover. But having going within motion, happening now is
process of going. But, both the real act of without motion. motion follows from because there is going happening now,
indeed, the present going and the simple [However,] the present being a mover. within motion. Or, doesn't it?
process of going is fact of going. [This is] moving, indeed, means following the structure
2.4
going. because the real fact of being moved [i.e., the and wording of v. 10:
going begins to move present moving, indeed, “To claim that there is
when we have takes place]. going within motion
forgotten the implies that there could
consciousness of going, be no going within
and the real fact of motion, because it is
going begins to be asserted there is going
realized then. within motion.”
Two goings are implied It is a twofold problem A twofold movement is If motion is in the If there were going If what is happening
in the going of the that we usually attach implied in the mover, There would within motion, it would now is happening
process of going; that the fact of going to the movement of the have to be a twofold follow that going would now, then, in the
by which there is a real act of going. present moving: that by motion: One in virtue of be twofold: that by happening of what is
present process of However, the fact of which there comes to be which it is a mover, And which one becomes happening now,
2.5
going and again, the going is included in the present moving and, one in virtue of which it someone in motion [in a there are two
going therein. real act of going, and again, the movement moves. place] and [that by happenings: (1) that
the real act of going is itself. which one] goes in that which is happening
included in the fact of [place]. now and (2) the
going. happening of that

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 11


which is happening
now.
Where there are two It is attachment to If two movements are If there were a twofold If going were twofold, If there are two
goings implied, two divide the motion of allowed, it would follow motion, The subject of the goer also would be happenings, then
goers result. A goer going into two parts, that there would be two that motion would be twofold, because going there must be two
separated from going and it is also attachment movers. For, separated twofold. For without a is impossible without a things that happen
does not happen. to divide the real act of from a mover, a subject of motion, goer. (two happeners), for
going into two parts. movement is not There cannot be there cannot be a
2.6
Because when we do appropriate. motion. happening without a
not look at the motion happener.
of going, the real act of
going may not manifest
itself into this world
actually.
Going and a goer do not When a person who If it is thought that a If without a mover It If there were no goer, If we can't say that
occur as separate goes has not movement separated would not be correct to going would be anything is
thoughts. Where going manifested [himself or from a mover is not say that there is motion, impossible. If there happening unless
does not exist, where herself], it is impossible appropriate, then, when Then if there were no were no going, where there is a happener
then will there be a for the real act of going no movement exists, motion, How could could a goer be (something that
goer? to manifest itself in the how could there be a there be a mover? existent? happens), then if
2.7 real world actually. mover? nothing is happening,
When the abstract how could there be a
concept “to go” now is happener (something
not the real act of that happens)?
going, where is it
possible for it to exist at
all?
So long as a non-goer As the motion of going As much as a mover Inasmuch as a real When a goer does not Whatever happens
does not go, a goer also itself does not go at all, does not move, a non- mover does not move, go, a non-goer cannot must be either
does not go. Other than the act of not going also mover too does not And a non-mover does go; what third one other something that
a goer and a non-goer, never goes at all. A move. Other than a not move, A part from a than a goer and a non- happens (a
who is the third that motion that is different mover and a non-mover, mover and a non-mover, goer could go? [cf. v. 15] happener) or
goes? from the motion of what third party moves? What third thing could something that does
2.8 going is just the motion move? not happen (a non-
not to go, therefore a happener). If neither
third one [a type of a happener nor a
motion that is different non-happener
both from going and happens, what else is
not going] never goes at there that could
all. happen?
2.9 How does it just happen How is it possible for Indeed, how When without motion, It When a goer* is If nothing happens,

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 12


that the “goer as much the abstract concept “to appropriate will be the is unacceptable to call impossible without there cannot be a
as goes”? When is there go” to appear at all? view that a mover something a mover, going, then how is it happener. 1 If there
a goer where there is noWithout the real act of moves? For, a mover How will it be possible to say: “a goer is no happener, then
going that takes place? going, the motion of without movement is acceptable To say that a goes”? we cannot say that a
going can never certainly not mover moves? happener happens.
manifest itself in the appropriate.
universe at all.
His whose position The idea that one of the For him who entertains For him from whose To claim that a goer Someone who thinks
implies “the goer goes” two, a person who goes the view: "A mover perspective a mover goes implies that there that a happener
seeks going and a goer or [the idea of] the moves," and who looks moves, There would be could be a goer who happens (that is, that
where the going is motion of going, really for the movement of a the consequence that does not go, because it something that
without a goer. goes is completely mover, it follows that Without motion there is asserted that a goer happens happens)
attached to a wrong there is a mover without could be a mover. goes. [cf. v. 4] must also think that
belief. If we rely movement. Because a mover there can be a
completely upon the moves. happener even when
2.10 real act of going, it is nothing is happening.
impossible both for a
person who goes and
the motion of going to
exist, and it is
impossible for us to
separate the real act of
going from a person
who goes or the motion
to go.
If a goer goes, that Even though the real If a mover were to If a mover were to If the goer goes, it If a happener were to
results in two goings, act of going clings to move, then it would move, There would be a would follow that going happen, then we
one called “goer” and both a person who goes follow that there will be twofold motion: One in would be twofold: that would have two
the other an existing and the motion of going two movements; one in virtue of which he is a which reveals* the goer happenings: (1) the
goer who goes. as its two component virtue of which he is mover, And one in virtue and that which goes happening of the
factors, the real act of spoken of as a mover, of which the mover once [he] has become a happener and (2) the
going actually exists as and the other in terms moves. goer. happening of the
2.11 it is. When the abstract of which an existing happening.
concept of a person mover is said to move.
who goes and the
motion to go [as an
abstract interpretation]
haven’t been born, a
concrete person himself
just goes.
2.12 To go does not begin in The real act of going is Movement is not begun Motion does not begin If a beginning of going What is happening

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 13


what has already gone, never realized in the in the moved, nor is it in w hat has moved, Nor does not exist in what now doesn't begin
the goer does not begin memory of having gone, begun in the not moved. does it begin in what has gone, [if] a with what has
in what has not yet and the real act of going Neither is it initiated in has not moved, N or do beginning of going does already happened,
gone. To go does not is never realized in the the present moving. es it begin in w hat is not exist also in what nor does it begin
begin in the present thought of not having Wherein is then moving. In what, then, has not [yet] gone [and with what has not yet
process of going. Where yet gone. Since the real movement initiated? does motion begin ? if] there does not exist happened, nor does
does it begin? act of going is never a beginning within it begin with what is
realized in the memory motion, wherein is a happening now (that
of going, it is impossible beginning of going is, with itself). 3
for us to decide exactly made? Where, then, is the
when the real act of beginning of what is
going begins. happening now?

Prior to the beginning Before the time when a Prior to the Prior to the beginning Before a beginning of We cannot find the
of going, there is real act of going has commencement of of motion, There is no going, there is not any beginning of what is
neither a present begun, that is, when movement, there is beginning of motion in motion or anything happening now in
process of going nor there is nothing yet, the neither the present The going or in the which has gone wherein that which is prior to
what has already gone. recognition of going at moving or the moved gone. How could there going could begin. How the beginning of
Where is there a the present moment from which movement be motion in the not- can going exist in what what is happening
beginning of going in does not exist, and the is initiated. How could gone? has not [yet] gone? now (that is, in that
what has not yet gone? memory of having gone there be a movement in which has already
2.13
Where is the going? in the past also does not the not moved? come and gone), nor
exist. In such a situation, can we find it in that
the real act of going can which has not yet
begin, but the real act happened. Where,
of going never exists in then, is it?
the thought of having
not yet gone.

Who has already gone, [The memory of] having When the Since the beginning of If a beginning of going We can distinguish
the present process of gone, [the commencement of motion Cannot be is simply not apparent in between (1) what has
going, who is not yet consciousness of] going, movement is not being conceived in any way, any way, examine: what already happened,
gone is presumed. The and [the thought of] perceived in any way, What gone thing, what has gone? what is (2) what is happening
beginning of going is having not gone are all what is jt that is going thing, And what motion? what has not now, and (3) what
not in any way seen. individual concrete discriminated as the non-going thing can be [yet] gone? has not yet
2.14
cases, so it is impossible moved, the present posited? happened; but we
for any one case to moving, or the not cannot find the
replace another case. moved? beginning of what is
When such situations happening now
[of memory, anywhere.
recognition, or thought]

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 14


have ‘begun to cease,
then it is possible for
everything to exist in
the real act of going.

The goer does not stay The motion of going is As much as a mover is
When we have become When a goer does not We can distinguish
as much as the non-goer not fixed and the not stationary, so is a
completely free from stay, a non-goer cannot between (1) things
does not stay. Other motion of not going is non-mover not
the recognition of stay; what third one that happen
than the goer and the also not fixed. Apart stationary. Other than a
going, the memory of other than a goer and a (happeners) and (2)
non-goer, who is the from the motion of mover and a non-mover,
having gone, or the non-goer could stay? things that do not
third that stays? going and the motion of what third party is
thought of not having happen (non-
not going, a third [type stationary?gone, it is absolutely happeners).]
of motion] that is impossible for any kind Happeners are not
completely different of fixed situation to standing still, but
2.15
from these two is also exist. In any case, the non-happeners are
not fixed at all. fact of going manifests not standing still
itself just at the present either. 4 Other than
moment instantly, and it happeners and non-
also hides itself happeners, what else
instantly at the present is there that could be
moment. Relying upon standing still?
this fact, the real act of
going is really produced.
How can [the How is it possible for How appropriate would If without motion It is When a goer is not The idea of a non-
statement] “a goer who the abstract concept “to it be [to say]: "A mover, not appropriate to posit possible without going, moving happener
stays” obtain? A goer go” to be fixed even at the moment, is a mover, How could it be how then is it possible (that is, of something
without going just never slightly? When there is stationary"? For, a appropriate to say that [to say]: “a goer stays.” happening that
happens. no real act of going, it is mover without a moving thing is doesn't happen) is
2.16
completely impossible movement is not stationary? nonsensical.
for the motion of going appropriate. Something
to manifest itself in this happening without
world at all. happening never
happens.
He does not stay When we have become One does not come to One does not hall from There is no reversal of Something that
because [the goer] is completely free from be stationary because moving, Nor from motion*, nor also of happens does not
either presently going, the recognition of one is either moving, or having moved or not what has gone [and] stop happening (1)
has already gone, or has going, the memory of has moved, or has not having moved. Motion what has not [yet] gone. because it is
2.17 not yet gone. Going is having gone, or the moved. Movement, and coming to rest And [Reversal of] going, happening, or (2)
the same as origination, thought of not having commencement and starting to move are engagement [to stay] because it has
and already having gone gone, it is absolutely cessation (of similar. and reversal [of already happened, or
is the same as cessation. impossible for any kind movement) are all staying] are similar to (3) because it has not

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 15


of fixed situation to comparable to motion: going. yet happened.
exist. In any case, the Happening is the
fact of going manifests same as beginning to
itself just at the present happen, and having
moment instantly, and it already happened is
also hides itself the same as ceasing
instantly at the present to happen.
moment. Relying upon
this fact, the real act of
going is really produced.
The statement “the It is not so attached an The view that that motion just is the It is inappropriate to It doesn't make sense
goer is the same as idea [to believe] that movement is identical mover itself Is not say: “going and a goer to say that "the
going” is not the motion of going with the mover is not correct. Nor is it correct are the same.” It is happener is the same
reasonable. The realizes the real act of proper. The view that that They are inappropriate to say: as the happening" or
statement “the goer is going. In other words, the mover is different completely different. “going and a goer are that "the happener is
different from going” is this means that the from motion is also not different.” different from the
2.18
not reasonable. motion of going is proper. happening."
included in the behavior
of going, and this idea is
also not an attached
idea at all.

If the goer would be the Like this, the motion of If movement were to be It would follow from If whatever is going If the happener were
same as going, then it going actually produces identical with the The identity of mover were a goer, it would the same as the
would follow that the the real act of going, mover, it would follow and motion that agent follow that the actor happening, then
doer and the deed and such a fact can that· there is identity of and action Are identical. and the act would be actor and action,
become one [are identi occur as a real fact. agent and action. the same too. deed and doer,
Therefore, the motion would be identical.
2.19 of going and the real act
of going are fused into
one, and the action of
realizing something and
practice itself have been
fused into one.

If it is assumed the goer Another [way of] If the discrimination is It would follow from A If going and a goer were If the happener were
differs from what has understanding [it] is if made that the mover is real distinction between conceived as different, different from the
gone, then there would we imagine that the fact different from motion, motion and mover that there could be going happening, then it
2.20 be going without a goer of going and the motion then there would be there could be a mover without a goer and a would follow that
and there would be a of going change places movement without a without motion And goer without going. there could be
goer without going. with each other. The mover, and mover motion without a happeners without

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 16


real act of going might without movement. mover. happenings and
move without happenings without
recognizing the fact of happeners.
going, and the act of
going might move
without recognizing the
real act of going.

Of what is either A concrete real entity Whose establishment is When neither in identity If things are not If happener and
identity or difference exists sometimes as not evident either Nor in difference Can established as the same happening are
established? Now that only one totality, and through identity or they be established, and as different, how neither identical nor
their establishment is sometimes its through difference, how How can these two be can they be established? different, then how
not evident, how then expansion exists in the is their establishment established at all? should we
does it occur? form of miscellaneous evident at all? understand them?
individual things. If it is
impossible for us to
recognize that the real
2.21 entity is not recognized
as the expansion of
itself and that it exists
as all things and
phenomena, which are
scattered as they are,
we may be doubtful
whether they really
exist or not.

Whatever goer is said to Relying upon the Whatever motion in The motion by means of That very going by When something
have gone, he does not motion of going itself, terms of which a mover which a mover is which a goer is made that happens
go by that going the motion of going is spoken of, he does manifest Cannot be the evident does not happens, it isn't
because he does not promotes the motion of not move by that motion by means of [enable a goer to] go. caused to happen by
exist prior to going. So going, and it is not a motion. Because he which he moves. He Because there is no its happening since it
is there anyone who fact that going itself does not exist prior to does not exist before [goer] before going, has no existence
goes? makes going go ahead. motion, who or what is that motion, So what who would be going before it happens. So
2.22
Therefore before the it that moves? and where is the thing where? is there, in fact,
motion of going itself that moves? anything that
really exists, there is no happens?
fact that something like
a receptacle [for
example, a concept]
really goes on.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 17


Whatever goer is said to Relying upon the Whatever motion in A mover does not carry [A going] which is other Something that
have gone, he does not motion of going, first terms of which a mover out a different motion than the going by which happens doesn't
go by this [being a goer] the concrete motion of is spoken of, he does From that by means of a goer is made evident show itself in a
or that [having gone]. going exists, and not carry out a motion which he is manifest as does not [enable a goer happening other
Two goings do not occur following that the that is completely a mover. Moreover, in to] go. Because it is than the happening
because there is only motion of going is different from it. A one mover A twofold impossible for going to by which it shows
one setting out. promoted, so there is twofold motion is not motion is unacceptable. be twofold within a itself. Something
no possibility that the appropriate, since it is single goer. that happens cannot
expansion of other only one person that show itself in two
[factors] goes ahead moves. distinct happenings.
actually. There is no
2.23 possibility for the
motion of going to be
divided into two parts
[the fact of going and a
person who goes] and
for both [of these] to
manifest themselves as
two factors. Therefore
there is only one fact of
going, which goes ahead
as one.

A true goer going does It is not a real fact that An existent mover does A really existent mover One who is a goer does An existent
not go in three ways. three entities—the real not carry out the Doesn't move in any of not go in the three happener's
Neither does one who world, the real act of movement in any of the the three ways. A non- aspects of going. Also happening does not
does not exist as going going, and a person who three ways. Neither existent mover Doesn't one who is not [a goer] happen in any of "the
go in three ways. goes—go ahead. It is does a non-existent move in any of the three does not go in the three three ways" (that is,
completely impossible mover carry out the ways. aspects of going. neither in the past,
for an unreal world and movement in any of the nor in the future, nor
a real act of going to be three ways. [even] in the
2.24 identified as one, so it is present). A non-
also completely existent happener's
impossible for the three happening also does
kinds of entities [the not happen in any of
real world, a real act of "the three ways."
going, and a person who
goes] to go ahead
together at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 18


An existent or non- The three types of real Nor does a person carry Neither an entity nor a One who is and is not [a Therefore, neither an
existent going does not facts—a real act of out a movement, both non-entity Moves in any goer] also does not go existent nor a non-
go in three ways. going, the real world, existent and non- of the three ways. So in the three aspects of existent happener's
Therefore, the going, and an unreal world—all existent, in any of the motion, mover and And going. Therefore, going happening happens
the goer, and the gone belong to reality, so it is three ways. Therefore, route are non-existent. and a goer and also that in any of "the three
do not occur. completely impossible neither motion, nor the which is gone over do ways." The
for these three factors mover, nor the space to not exist. happening, the
to go ahead newly at all. be moved is evident. happener, and the
2.25 Therefore it is happened are all
completely impossible non-existent.
for the motion of going,
the fact to go, and the
state of
accomplishment of
going to be recognized
intellectually at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 19


Chapter 3

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Analysis of the Eye, etc., Examination of the Eye Examination of the Examination of the Investigations of the
3 the Faculties and other Sense Organs Faculty of Eye Senses Sense Organs (Seeing)
Seeing, hearing, The sense of sight, the Seeing, hearing, Seeing, hearing, Seeing and hearing and
smelling, tasting, sense of sound, the smelling, tasting, smelling, Tasting, smelling and tasting and
touching, and thinking sense of smell, the touching, and mind are touching, and mind Are touching, mind are the
are the six faculties andsense of taste, the the six faculties. Their the six sense faculties. six sense organs; their
the sphere, their objectssense of touch, and the spheres consist of the Their spheres are the experienced objects are
3.1 of seeing, etc. sense center. These six object of seeing, etc. visible objects, etc .… what-is-seen and so
senses are familiar to forth.
us, and what is seen,
and so forth, are the
objects of these sense
functions.
Indeed, seeing does not The function of seeing Seeing does not That very seeing does Seeing does not see
see itself. How can that produces one’s own perceive itself, its own not see itself at all. How itself. How can what
which does not see mind, and so the form. How can that can something that does not see itself see
itself see others? function of seeing never which does not perceive cannot see itself See anything else?
looks at one’s own itself, see others? another?
3.2 mind. As the function of
seeing never looks at
one’s own mind, the
function of seeing itself
does not look at any
other things at all.
The example of fire Images that we grasp The example of fire is The example of fire The example of fire is
{which burns but does directly by seeing, like not adequate for the Cannot elucidate not able to fully
not burn itself] is not fire, are not the perfect establishment of seeing. Along with the establish seeing. It,
sufficient for the experience of reality in seeing. That [fire] moved and not-moved along with seeing, has
explanation of seeing. the function of seeing. together with seeing and motion That has been refuted by “gone”,
3.3 That, and seeing, is Expressions of that are refuted by [a been answered. “not gone” and “going.”
refuted by the already which is seen are just refutation of] the
gone, the present explanations; the present moving, the
process of going and difference [between moved and the not
the not yet gone. verbal expressions and moved.
real facts] is like the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 20


difference between the
concepts “being gone,”
“gone,” and “not gone”
and the real facts at the
present moment
[described in ].
If there is seeing which If there is no When some form of When there is not even When not seeing the
is not presently in the consideration, which is seeing that is not the slightest Non-seeing slightest thing, there is
process of seeing, then different from the perceiving does not seer, How could it no act of seeing. How
how can this statement ability to see things and exist, how pertinent is makes sense to say That can it [then] be
“seeing sees” obtain? phenomena, it is the view that seeing seeing sees? reasonable to say:
completely impossible perceives? “seeing sees”?
for the ability of seeing
3.4 things and phenomena
to exist at all. When we
consider whether the
ability of seeing things
can be seen by others, it
is completely impossible
for such a thing to occur
at all.
Seeing does not see nor It is completely Seeing does not Seeing itself does not Seeing does not see;
does non-seeing see. impossible for the perceive, nor does non- see. Non-seeing itself non-seeing does not
And moreover, the seer ability of seeing to be seeing perceive. One does not see. Through see. It should be
has been explained seen by something, and should admit that a seer seeing itself The clear understood that seeing
above by and as the it is also completely is explained by [the analysis of the seer is explains the seer too.
seeing. impossible for the state analysis of] seeing itself. understood.
of not seeing to be seen
at all. Relying upon
seeing things and
phenomena, it is
3.5
possible for us to
explain the things and
phenomena in detail,
but the function of
seeing things and
phenomena is just
facing those things and
phenomena, and it is
difficult for [that
function] itself to grasp

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 21


the reality of things and
phenomena.
The seer does not exist The ability of seeing A seer does not exist Without detachment Without letting go of
separated or not should never be held in either separated or not from vision there is no [seeing] a seer does not
separated from seeing. low esteem, because separated from seeing. seer. Nor is there a seer exist; in letting go of
If the seer does not the estimation of When a seer does not detached from it. If seeing, there is also [no
exist, where is the something as [being] exist, whence can there there is no seer How can seer]. If there is no seer,
seeing and the seen? low is also a kind of be seeing and the the re be seeing or the where can there be
interpretation. The fact object of seeing? seen? what-is-seen and
that things and seeing?
3.6
phenomena are seen
concretely and the
function of seeing
things are just one
reality, and so there is
nothing other than that,
the real fact of seeing is
just what is real.
As the birth of a son is Missing Just as the birth of a Just as the birth of a Just as it is said that a
said to be dependent son is said to be son is said to occur In child emerges in
upon a mother and dependent upon the dependence on the dependence on a father
father, so the arising of mother and the father, mother and father, So and a mother, likewise it
3.7 consciousness is even so, the arising of consciousness is said to is said that
dependent upon eye [visual] consciousness is arise In dependence on consciousness emerges
and form [material said to be dependent the eye and material in dependence upon an
objects seen]. upon eye and material form. eye and a visual form.
form.
From the non--existence Departing from the If it is the view that the· From the nonexistence Because there is no
of seeing and the object wrong idea that there is four factors, beginning of seeing and the seen what-is-seen and no
seen, consciousness and no oneness between with consciousness, do it follows that The other seeing, the four such as
the other four [form, seeing and that which is not exist, because of four facuIties of consciousness do not
sensation, perception, seen, the four kinds of the absence of seeing knowledge do not exist. exist. How can clinging
and disposition] do not entities [understanding, and the object of And all the aggregates, etc. exist?
exist. perception, action, and seeing, how then can etc„ Are the same way.
3.8
reality] can really exist. there be grasping?
If we think that the
things and phenomena
of this world do not
exist at all, how is it
possible to believe that
anything really exists

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 22


even in the future?
What has been In explaining hearing, What has been Like the seen, the heard, It should be understood
explained for seeing smelling, tasting, explained as hearing, the smelled, The tasted, that seeing explains
{applies equally to] touching, and the sense smelling, tasting, and the touched, . The hearing and smelling
hearing, smelling, center, we can use the touching, and mind, as hearer, sound, etc., And and tasting and
tasting, touching, and same explanation as well as the hearer, the consciousness should be touching, mind, hearer,
thinking as well as the that used to explain sound, etc. should be understood. what is heard, etc.
3.9
origin of the hearer and seeing. A person who known in the same way
the sound, etc. hears and so forth, and as seeing.
the object that is heard
and so forth, can also be
explained using the
example of seeing.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 23


Chapter 4

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Analysis of the Examination of the Examination of Examination of the Investigations of the


4
Personality Skeins Aggregates Agreggates Aggregates Aggregates (Body)
Material form separated When form and content Material form, distinct Apart from the cause of Apart from the cause of
from the cause of are separate, even form from the cause of form, Form cannot be form, form is not
material form is not itself cannot manifest. It material form, is not conceived. Apart from perceived. Apart from
obtained, And the cause is not that content obtained. Similarly, a form, The cause of form “form”, the cause of
4.1 of material form manifests itself because cause of material form, is not seen. form also does not
separated from material of form; instead, form distinct from material appear.
form is not seen. and content are always form, is also not seen .
a fusion.

If material form When form and content When material form is If apart from the cause If there were form apart
separated from the exist separately, form [considered to be] of form, there were from the cause of form,
cause of material form can be seen only as distinct from the cause form, Form would be it would follow that
occurs, then there is form. [In the real world] of material form, it without cause. But form is without cause;
material form without a nothing unreasonable follows that material nowhere is there an there is no object at all
4.2 cause. But there is not ever exists at all, but if form is without a cause. effect Without a ~use. that is without cause.
any effect without a there is even a bit of an Nowhere is there any
cause anywhere. aim, it becomes possible effect (arthah) without
for the unreasonable to a cause.
exist.

But if, in material form, In relying upon the If there were to be a If a part from form If a cause of form
there would be material thought of form and cause of material form There were a cause of existed apart from
form and the cause of content, although they distinct from material form, It would be a form, it would exist as a
material form separated are seen as separate, form, there would then cause without an effect. cause without fruit;
in two parts, then there form and content may be a cause without an But there are no causes causes without fruit do
would be a cause be only the two fused effect. There certainly is without effects. not exist.
4.3 without an effect. There into one. When no ineffective cause.
is no cause without an something is illogical, it
effect. can never exist in this
world, and both that
illogical something and
content might be
different from what

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 24


really exists in this
world.

Where material form is, Content can never When a material form When form exists, A If form existed, a cause
the cause of material manifest itself in a exists, a cause of cause of the arising of of form would be
form does not occur. situation that is easily material form is not form is not tenable. untenable; if form did
Where material from is seen or that is included appropriate. When a When form is non- not exist, a cause of
not, the cause of by form. And content material form does not existent, A cause of the form would be
4.4
material form does not can never manifest exist, a cause of arising of form is not untenable.
occur. itself in a situation that material form is also not tenable.
is not easily seen or is appropriate.
not included by form.

Again, material form That which does not Furthermore, a material Form itself without a Forms which do not
without a cause does have any cause or form form without a cause is cause Is not possible or have a cause are not at
not occur. Therefore, can never, never absolutely tenable. Therefore, all tenable. Therefore,
one should not manifest in this world. inappropriate. think about form, but do not conceive the
conjecture about any Therefore the form [of Therefore, one should Do not construct concept of form at all.
4.5 false discrimination something without not discriminatively theories about form.
about material forms. cause] can never think of anything
manifest itself, and real confined to material
change does not occur form.
in the real world.

4.6 The statement “the A comfortable state The view that. the The assertion that the It is untenable to say,
effect is similar to the does not exist in action effect is identical with effect and cause are “the fruit is like the
cause” does not obtain. that is actually the cause is not similar Is not cause.” It is also
The statement “the occurring at the present appropriate. The view acceptable. The untenable to say, “the
effect is not similar to moment, but work that that the effect is not assertion that they are fruit is unlike the
the cause” does not is accomplished already identical with the cause not similar Is also not cause.”
obtain. manifests itself in the is also not appropriate. acceptable.
real world as a concrete
fact. An uncomfortable
state does not exist in
action that is actually
occurring at the present
moment, but work that
is accomplished already
manifests itself in the
real world as a concrete
fact.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 25


Feelings, thoughts, The intention to acquire The method of Feelings, Feeling and perception,
perceptions, and knowledge always treatment of all discriminations, and impulses and mind and
dispositions in general, exists in the inclusive existents such as dispositions And all things are
as well as the totality of totality and in clear feeling, thought, consciousness and all comparable in every
beings follow the same understanding. All perception and such things Should be aspect, at every stage
4.7 rule as material form. acquisition of dispositions is in every thought of In the same with form.
knowledge is done in way similar to that. of way as material form.
diverse existences, and material form.
relying upon visible
facts, progress occurs.

Whoever argues against When one exists When an analysis is When an analysis is When having argued by
openness for the sake independently, one can made in terms of made through means of emptiness,
of refuting an keep one’s attentive emptiness, whosoever emptiness, If someone everything of that one
argument, all his attitude and can speak were to address a were to offer a reply, who objects is not an
refutations do not from the balanced refutation, all that is that reply will fail, since objection; it is similar to
refute for he is state. In actual left unrefuted by him it will presuppose what is to be
4.8 conquered by the same situations, although will be equal to what is Exactly what is to be established .
proof. nothing is shunned, all yet to be proved. proven.
things and phenomena
can manifest
themselves in the state
of regulation.

Whoever explains by Even when one must When an explanation in When an explanation is When having explained
means of openness for address another's terms of emptiness is made through by means of emptiness,
the sake of ascertaining, faults, if one explains it given, whosoever were emptiness, Whoever everything of that one
all his ascertainments in the balanced state to address a censure, all would find fault with it who finds fault is not a
do not ascertain for he one can express one’s that is left uncensored Will find no fault, since fault; it is similar to
is conquered by the opinion well. If the by him will be equal to the criticism will what is to be
4.9 same demonstration. person who addresses what is yet to be presuppose Exactly established.
another's faults does proved. what is to be proven.
not have any fault at all,
all things and
phenomena manifest
themselves in the
regulated condition

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 26


Chapter 5

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Analysis of the Examination of Physical Examination of the Examination of Investigations of the


5
Elements substances Elements Elements Elements (Spaces)
Space does not occur Before space and its No space is evident Prior to a characteristic Not the slightest bit of
prior to some characteristics have prior to the spatial of space There is not space exists prior to the
characteristic of space. been identified, what is characteristics. If it the slightest space. If it characteristics of space.
If it would exist prior tocalled space can never exists prior to the arose prior to the If [space] existed prior
having a characteristic, become the object of characteristics, then it characteristic Then it to its characteristics, it
it follows that there real experience at all. would follow that it is would, absurdly, arise would follow that it
would be space without The fact that something without characteristics. without a characteristic. would be without
5.1
a characteristic. without characteristics characteristics.
appears may suggest
that there is something
real before [we identify
it and when] it has not
departed from its
original condition.
Not any existent How is it possible for An existent that is A thing without a A thing without
without a characteristic that which does not without characteristics characteristic Has never characteristics does not
is found anywhere. have characteristics to is nowhere evident. existed. If nothing lacks exist anywhere at all. If
Where a being without exist anywhere? When When an existent a characteristic, Where a thing without
a characteristic does not what occurs in front of without characteristics do characteristics come characteristics does not
5.2 exist, where does that us does not have any does not exist, where to be? exist, to what do
characteristic appear? characteristics and does can characteristics characteristics extend?
not exist, that which is appear?
called a characteristic
can never be anywhere
at all.
A characteristic appears The manifestation of The occurrence of a Neither in the Characteristics do not
not in what has a characteristics does not characteristic does not uncharacterized nor in extend to that which
characteristic nor in exist in non- take place either in the characterized Does has no characteristics;
what does not have a characteristics, and at something without a characteristic arise. nor to what possesses
5.3 characteristic. Nor is it the same time the characteristic or in Nor does it arise In characteristics. They
set in motion from any manifestation of something with something different also cannot extend to
(existent) other than characteristics does not characteristic. Nor does from these two. something other than
what neither has nor occur in that which is it proceed from what either possesses

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 27


does not have a not a characteristic. The something other than or does not have
characteristic. manifestation of those with or without characteristics.
characteristics does not characteristic.
occur in a place other
than in the oneness
between concrete
characteristics and that
which is not a
characteristic.
If neither characteristic When a characteristic When the characteristic If characteristics do not If characteristics do not
is present, the has not yet appeared, does not occur, the appear, Then it is not extend [to something] ,
characterized does not that characteristic is characterized is not tenable to posit the something
occur. If there is no never recognized at all. appropriate. In the characterized object. If characterized would be
occurrence of the When the image of a absence of the the characterized object impossible. If
5.4
characterized, there is characteristic is not yet characterized, there is is not posited, There something
no occurrence of the recognized, the no occurrence of the will be no characteristic characterized is
characteristic. characteristic itself characteristic. either. impossible,
never exists in this characteristics too
world at all. would not exist.
Therefore the Therefore, when the Therefore, the From this it follows that Therefore, something
characterized does not recognition of a characterized is not there is no characterized does not
occur nor does the characteristic has not evident. Neither is the characterized And no exist and characteristics
characteristic occur, appeared in our characteristic evident. existing characteristic. do not exist. There also
Separate from the consciousness, there is Distinct from the Nor is there any entity does not exist a thing
characteristic and the no chance that the characterized and the Other than the which is apart from
characterized, no existence of the characteristic, a n characterized and the being something
existent occurs, characteristic is existent is certainly not characteristic. characterized or a
5.5 recognized at all. When evident. characteristic.
the recognition of a
characteristic and
recognition itself are
separated from each
other clearly, the
existence of
characteristics is never
realized at all.
How will there be a When ignorance really Who could comprehend f there is no existent If there is not a thing, of
being where a being is exists, how will it be the distinct things: thing, Of what will there what can there be a
5.6 not occurring ? And who possible for it not to existent and non- be nonexistence? Apart non-thing? By whom
favors the statement exist at all? The existent as well as from existent and are the opposites thing
“existents and non- discussion of whether existence and non- nonexistent things Who and non-thing known

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 28


existents are beings and existence is or is not existence? knows existence and [as] a thing and a non-
non-beings devoid of real opposes the nonexistence? thing?
attributes’? Dharma, and how is it
possible for the
discussion of whether
existence is or is not
real to be useful even in
the future?
Therefore space is Therefore, not Therefore; there is Therefore, space is not Therefore, space is not
neither an existent nor existence, not neither an existent nor an entity. It is not a a thing; it is not a non-
a non-existent, neither nonexistence, not the a non-existent, neither nonentity. Not thing; it is not
the characterized nor a image of a the characterized nor characterized, not something
characteristic. The other characteristic, and not the characteristic, without character. The characterized; it is not a
five elements are the the characteristic itself, neither space nor the same is true of the characteristic. The
5.7 same as space. But open space and the other five elements other live elements. other five elements too
other material elements similar to space. are similar to space.
are the five kinds of
matter, which are
separated and
independent from each
other.
But those of inferior Reality can be seen as Those who are of little Fools and reificationists Those of small minds
insight who see only the the things and intelligence, who who perceive The see things as existent
existence and non- phenomena before us, perceive the existence existence and and non-existent. They
existence of beings do and denial of this world as well as the non- nonexistence Of objects do not behold the utter
not see the is only the habit of existence of existents, Do not see the pacification of what is
5.8 emancipating cessation stupid people. Those do not perceive the pacification of seen.
of appearances. people do not wish to appeasement of the objectification.
look at miscellaneous object, the auspicious.
things and phenomena
as something quiet and
benevolent.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 29


Chapter 6

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the
Investigation of Desire
Analysis of Passion and Fusion of the Examination of Lust and Examination of Desire
6 and the Desirous one
the Impassioned Excitement and the the Lustful and the Desirous
(Addictions)
Excited
If an impassioned one Before departing from If a lustful one, If prior to desire And If a desirous one
would exist prior to the abstract concept of separated from lust, without desire there without desire exists
passion and separate excitement, the were to exist prior to were a desirous one, before desire, desire
from passion, then concrete state of lust, then depending Desire would depend on would exist dependent
passion would depend excitement exists upon him there will be him. Desire would exist on that [desirous one].
on him and passion neglecting the abstract lust. Lust exists when when there is a desirous [When] a desirous one
would exist only where concept of excitement. there is a lustful one. one. exists, desire exists.
6.1 there is an impassioned It is possible for the
one. concrete state of
excitement to exist
clearly, and for
excitement itself really
to exist in the excited
state itself.

Again, where an At the same time how is When a lustful one does Were there no desirous If there were no
impassioned one does it at all possible that not exist, whence can one, moreover, Where desirous one, how could
not exist, where will excitement is not real there be lust? Whether would desire occur? there be desire? The
there be passion? The existence in the state of lust exists or not, the Whether or not desire same follows for the
passion neither exists excitement? In concrete method (of analysis) or the desirous one desirous one too: [it
nor does not exist in the cases or in abstract even of the lustful one exist, The analysis depends on] whether
impassioned and vice cases, the real would be comparable. would be the same. desire exists or not.
6.2
versa. situations that occur in
real circumstances are
all balanced and stable
and they are always a
process [occurring] at
the present moment.

Again, the conjunction At the same time, Again, the simultaneous Desire and the desirous It is not reasonable for
6.3 of the passion along because being together occurrences of lust and one Cannot arise desire and the desirous

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 30


with the impassioned is just what is the lustful one is not together. In that case, one to arise as co-
does not exist. Indeed, interpreted as being so, proper. Lust and the desire and the desirous existent. In this way
that would make it is not a combination lustful one would then one Would not be desire and the desirous
passion and the of conceptual sensation be mutually non- mutually contingent. one would not be
impassioned and the state of contingent. mutually contingent.
independent of one sensation. Because—
another. aha!—the conceptual
sensation and the state
of sensation may exist
mutually neglecting
each other.

There exists no Inseparability does not In identity, there is no In identity there is no Identity has no co-
concomitance in really exist in oneness, coexistence. That which simultaneity. A thing is existence: something
identity because one is because what exists as is associated does not not simultaneous with cannot be co-existent
not with the other. inseparable just relies arise together. In itself. But if there is with itself. If there
Moreover, in difference upon inseparability. discreteness, how can difference, Then how were difference, how
where will there be Furthermore, when: there be coexistence? would there be could there be co-
6.4
concomitance? inseparability exists in simultaneity? existence?
individual separations,
how will it be possible
for the oneness to exist
at all?

Would identity be with When inseparability is in If, in identity, there If in identity there were If the identical were co-
as well as without this oneness, the situation were to be coexistence, simultaneity. Then it existent, [co-existence]
concomitance? Would may be that something it could occur even could occur without would also occur
difference be with as real exists without any without association. If, association. If in between the unrelated;
well as without this companion. Even in the in discreteness, there difference there were if the different were co-
concomitance? case that inseparability were to be coexistence, simultaneity, It could existent, [co-existence]
6.5
exists in separate it could occur even occur without would also occur
existences, the situation without association. association. between the unrelated.
may be also that
something real exists
without any companion.

If there is concomitance When the inseparability If there were to be If in difference there If the different were co-
of the passion and the of the conceptual side coexistence in were simultaneity, How existent, how would
6.6 impassioned in the of a sensation and the discreteness, is it the could desire and the desire and the desirous
difference, what is state of sensation are in case that lust and the desirous one, Being one be established as
distinct and how is their separation, how is it lustful one are different, be different or, if that were

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 31


concomitance possible for anything to completely separated, established? If they so, [how would] those
established in it? belong to the fusion of as a result of which their were, they would be two be co-existent?
the conceptual side of a coexistence is also simultaneous.
sensation and the state established.
of sensation. When a
real situation exists in
separation, even the
inseparability of the
conceptual side of a
sensation and the state
of sensation is different
from what they are.

If the individuality of Even if the real situation f complete separation If desire and the If desire and the
passion and the exists in separated between lust and the desirous one Are desirous were
impassioned is existences, the real lustful one is established as different, established as different,
established, for what situation can also established, for what Then why would you because of what could
purpose do you belong to the fusion of purpose do you think That they are one understand them as
determine their the conceptual side of a conceive of their simultaneous? co-existent?
concomitance? sensation and the state coexistence?
6.7
of sensation. Indeed, for
what purpose do you
put together the
conceptual side of a
sensation and the state
of sensation?

You aim at Even though reality is You fancy coexistence Since difference is not If one asserts them to
concomitance and thus not separate, you assuming that the established, If you be co-existent because
difference is not expect the conceptual discrete is not assert that they are they are not established
“established.” You look side of sensation and established. You, again, simultaneous, Since as different, then
for the existence of the state of sensation look for discreteness for they are established as because they would be
difference for the to come together from the purpose of simultaneous, Do you very much established
6.8 purpose of explaining a state of separation. establishing coexistence also assert that they are as co-existent, would
concomitance. Thinking that the aim is different? one not also have to
to accomplish this assert them to be
bringing together, you different?
long for the separated
condition.

6.9 Concomitance is not When a state of being When discreteness is Since nothing different Since different things

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 32


established and separate is not settled, not established, has been established, If are not established, co-
individuality is not the state of coexistence is not one is asserting existent things are not
explained. You are inseparability is not established. In the simultaneity, Which established. If there
looking to which, realized. From what presence of what kind different thing Do you existed any different
individuality or reason do you want to of discreteness would want to say is things, one could assert
difference? have the state of you expect coexistence. simultaneous? them as co-existent
actually being together things.
within the state of
being separate?

Thus nothing is In this way, because it is Thus, with or without Thus desire and the Since different things
established about a sensation, the the lustful one, there is desirous one Cannot be are not established, co-
passion with or without realization of sensation no establishment of established as existent things are not
the impassioned. Like itself is not the coming lust. Like lust, there is simultaneous or not established. If there
passion, nothing is together of the two and no establishment of simultaneous. So, like existed any different
established about not the separation of anything with or desire, nothing things, one could assert
6.10 events with or without the two. Being similar to without whatever Can be them as co-existent
all others. sensation, the reality of [accompaniments]. established either as things.
the whole Dharma is not simultaneous or as non-
the coming together of simultaneous.
the two, and not
separation of the two.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 33


Chapter 7

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Investigation of Birth,
Analysis of the Examination of the Examination of the Examination of the Arising, Enduring,
7 Abiding and Perishing
Conditioned External World Conditioned Conditioned and Dissolving
(Birth)
If arising is conditioned, If we suppose that the If arising is conditioned, If arising were If birth were If arising arises, then
then possessing three external world has therein three produced, Then it compounded, it would it would have the
marks is entailed appeared in the past, it characteristics are would also have the possess the three three characteristics
{origination, duration, must be yoked by the proper. If arising is three characteristics. If characteristics [of a of that which arises
destruction]. But if three characteristics— unconditioned, how can arising is not produced, compound]. If birth (arising, enduring,
arising is not appearance, continuity, there be characteristics How could the were uncompounded, and dissolving). 2 If
conditioned, how is it a and destruction, But if of the conditioned? characteristics of the how would it be a arising does not
7.1 mark of the the external world is produced exist? characteristic of a arise, how could it be
conditioned? what has appeared, how compound? a characteristic of
is. it possible for the that which arises?
external world to show
the characteristics that
the external world
shows now in front of
us?
When the three, The three. When the triad If the three, arising, etc., The three such as birth If the arising,
origination, etc., are characteristics consisting of arising, are separate, They cannot individually be enduring, and
separated, they are not [appearance, continuity, etc. are discrete, they cannot function as the that which characterizes dissolving of arising
sufficient for the and destruction] are are not adequate to characteristics of the compounds. How is it occur separately,
functions of the marks never very clear. The function as produced. But how possible for one at one then they cannot be
7.2 of conditioning. If they whole external world, characteristics of the could they be joined In time to be compounded the characteristics of
were combined, how which includes many conditioned. If they one thing [of all three]? arising. 3 But how
would they occur at one miscellaneous things were to be combined, simultaneously? could they occur
place at one and the and phenomena, might how can they be in the simultaneously? 4
same time? be at a place, but never same place at the same
only at one occasion. time?
If there are other marks What is different from If there were to be a If arising, abiding, and If birth, abiding and If arising has
of conditioning than serial time [appearance, characteristic of the ceasing Have perishing had an other characteristics other
those of origination, continuity, and conditioned other than characteristics other characteristic of being than arising,
7.3 duration, and destruction] is the arising, duration_, and than tho5e of the compounded, this enduring, and
destruction, there is an characteristic of the destruction, there produced, There would would be endless. If dissolving, then
infinite regress. If there external world. When would be infinite be an infinite regress. · not, they would not be there will be an
is not, then they are not there really are unstable regress. If there were to If they don'!, they would compounded. infinite regress. 5 If it

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 34


conditioned. situations [like be no such not be produced. has no characteristics
appearance, continuity, [characteristics], these at all, then it cannot
and destruction], the would not be arise.
characteristics of the conditioned.
external world do not
really exist, and the
external world is never
plural.
Origination is the A phenomenon, a The arising of arising is The arising of arising The birth of birth gives Perhaps there is a
arising of arising, the phenomenon, and a exclusively the arising only gives rise To the birth to the root birth non-arising arising of
isolated beginning of phenomenon, they are of primary arising. basic arising. ' The alone. The root birth arising; 6 and
origination. Again, independent from the Again, the primary arising of the basic also is that which gives perhaps this non-
origination is caused to so-called fundamental arising produces the arising Gives rise to birth to the birth of arising arising of
arise by the aboriginal phenomenon. A arising of arising. arising. birth. arising gives rise to
7.4
arising of arising. phenomenon manifests the arising of
a phenomenon itself as ordinary phenomena.
a phenomenon, and the
fundamental
[phenomenon] is also
newly produced.
If origination is the A phenomenon, a If arising of arising is the If, as you say, the arising If your birth of birth If there is a non-
arising of arising, it is phenomenon, and a primary arising, not of arising Gives rise to gives birth to the root arising arising of
the source of arising for phenomenon, if they being produced by the the basic arising, birth, how does that arising, then it is the
you. How, for you, will it belong to the so-called primary, how can it (the which is not yet born primary source of all
arise out of what has fundamental former] produce that from your root give arising. But if it is
7.5
not arisen originally? phenomenon, How is it (the latter]? birth to that [root non-arising, how can
possible for phenomena birth]? it be the arising of
to produce the so-called arising?
fundamental
phenomenon?
If what has arisen out of If we assume that the If, produced by the If, as you say, that which If that which is born If the arising of
the aboriginal is, for real miscellaneous primary, it produces the is arisen from basic from your root birth ordinary phenomena
you, given rise to by the phenomena have been primary, how can that arising Gives rise to the gives birth to the root, arises from the
aboriginal, how does produced by the primary, not produced basis, How does that how does that root foundational arising
the aboriginal occur out fundamental by it, produce it? nonarisen basis Give rise which is born from that of all arising, what
7.6 of that which has not phenomenon, and to it? give birth to that [from explains the
arisen. further that such real which it is born]? existence of that
miscellaneous foundational arising?
phenomena produce
the fundamental
phenomenon, We have

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 35


to believe that the
fundamental
phenomenon has not
been produced by the
real world, and so it is
impossible for us to
believe that the
fundamental
phenomenon produces
something that is
related with the real
world.
This present arising, for Just this world This, while arising, if it If this nonarisen Could If that which has not If the arising of the
you, intends that which manifests itself as may so desire, produce give rise to that, Then, been born is able to give arising of ordinary
would arise unless this miscellaneous things that, so that it, being as you wish, It will give birth to that, that of phenomena is non-
was able to not give rise and phenomena, and so not yet born, will be rise to that which is yours which is being arising . . . , [then its
to that which is to arise. those things and able to produce that. arising. born should be able to existence cannot be
phenomena manifest give birth to that. explained].
themselves in perfect
freedom. If we assume
7.7 that the world is
produced by anyone, we
have to accept that
what has not been born
[that is, God] produces
unfavorable things and
phenomena departing
from favorable
situations.
As light causes Brightness manifests As a light illuminates Just as a butterlamp Just as lamplight Can we say that the
illumination of itself as itself as a real entity, itself as well as others, Illuminates itself as well illuminates itself and arising of the arising
well as others, so arising which is a fusion so does arising produce as others, So arising others, likewise birth of ordinary
would give rise to itself between the subjective both itself and others. gives rise to itself And too gives birth to both phenomena gives
as well as others. and the objective. In to other arisen things. itself and the thing of rise to itself as well
such cases individual others. as to the arising of
7.8
phenomena manifest ordinary phenomena,
themselves as real just as a lamp
phenomena, which are a illuminates itself as
fusion between the well as other
subjective and the things . . . ?
objective.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 36


There is no darkness in Darkness does not exist There exists no In the butterlamp and Wherever lamplight is
light or where this really in brightness, and darkness either in the its place, There is no present there is no
[light] is situated. What so things and light or in whatever darkness. What then darkness. What does
does a lamp illumine phenomena in the world place it is situated. does the butterlamp lamplight illuminate? It
when light indeed are manifesting What does light illuminate? For illuminates by dispelling
destroys darkness? themselves before us illuminate? For, illumination is the darkness.
really as they are. illumination is indeed clearing of darkness.
7.9
Therefore it is never the destruction of
true that brightness darkness.
causes something to be
seen, but brightness is
just the destroyer of
darkness.

How is darkness How is it possible for How can darkness be If the arising butterlamp If, when lamplight is
destroyed by the darkness to be destroyed by the Does not reach being generated, it does
shining of light? Indeed destroyed by the emergent light , when darkness, How could not encounter darkness,
there is no shining when appearance of things, or the emerging light, that arising butterlamp how does the
light is reached by by darkness itself? The indeed, does not teach Have cleared the generation of lamplight
darkness. appearance of things darkness? darkness? dispel darkness?
and phenomena is
7.10 different from darkness
itself, and so brightness
can be effective
because the appearance
of things and
phenomena is different
from darkness itself.

But if darkness is Even when nothing can On the contrary, if If the illumination of If darkness is dispelled
overwhelmed by the be seen because of darkness is destroyed darkness occurs even though it does not
light without having brightness, it can be by light without Without the butterlamp encounter lamplight,
reached it, then in that said that darkness has reaching it, then that reaching darkness, All of this [lamplight] dwelling
case, it will destroy the produced a situation in [light) remaining here the darkness in the here would eliminate
darkness abiding in all which there is difficulty will destroy the world Should be the darkness that dwells
7.11 the world. in seeing [things and darkness present in all illuminated. in all the worlds.
phenomena]. The fact the worlds.
that something exists
here exactly means that
that something really
exists in the universe,

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 37


and even in such a case
we can say that real
darkness has the ability
to erase the scenery of
things and phenomena.

if light is illuminated by When brightness is If light were to If, when it is illuminated, If lamplight illuminated
itself or by another illuminating reality, illuminate both itself The butterlamp itself and the thing of
[source], then darkness which is the fusion of and others, then illuminates itself and others, darkness too
will undoubtedly the subjective and the certainly darkness too others, Darkness would without doubt
conceal itself as well as objective, Darkness will conceal itself and should, without a doubt, obscure itself and the
others. might also be the fusion others. Conceal itself and thing of others.
7.12 of the subjective and others.
the objective, and
darkness confirms itself
as something absolutely
different from any
unreliable fact.

How would this arising, What has not appeared How can this non-arisen How could this arising, How can unborn birth If the arising of the
which has not arisen, is this world, which arising produce itself? If being nonarisen, Give give birth to itself? If arising of ordinary
give rise to itself? manifests [itself] in it is the arisen that rise to itself? And if it is the born gives birth, phenomena is non-
Besides, if it is the front of us already, and produces, then being arisen from another, when it has been born, arising, how could it
arisen that is given riseso how is it possible for born, what is it that is Having arisen, what is what would be born? give rise to itself? If it
to, again, the arisen is the world ever to produced again? the need for another is given rise to either
7.13 given rise to by what? produce the subjective arising? by itself or by
soul? In such a case, something else, then
what has manifested it is not non-arising.
itself is vigorously
working in front of us,
and it is completely
impossible for anything
to be born once again.
How do neither the non- What is not manifesting Neither the present The arisen, the The born and the The non-arising, the
arising, the non-arisen, itself can never be a arising, nor the arisen, nonarisen, and that unborn, the being born not-yet-arisen, and
or the arisen [not phenomenon, and what nor the non-arisen, is which is arising Do not do not in any way give the arising: there is
unarisen] arise? They has not yet manifested being arisen in any way. arise in any way at all. birth. That has been no arising in any of
7.14 are known in the [same] itself can never be This has already been Thus they should be explained by the gone, them. They are like
way as going, gone, and anything at all. This explained by means of understood Just like the not gone and going. the nonhappening,
not gone. world manifests itself as [the concepts of] gone, the not-gone, and the not-yet-
that which cannot be present moving, the the going. happening, and the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 38


explained with words, moved and the not yet happening.
and its concrete moved.
situation can be
explained by the same
method [used in ] as
the difference between
[the memory of] “having
gone,” [the
consciousness of]
“going,” and [the
supposition of] “not yet
gone,” and the real act
of going in the real
world.

If this present arising is


What has manifested in When this present When there is arising When being born does If the now-arising is
not preceeded by front of us is just the arising does not but not yet That which not arise in what is born, not given rise to by a
arising, how is present
phenomenon itself, and proceed from within is arising, How can we then how can one say prior arising, then
arising called so the world is not arising, indeed, how can say that that which is “[it is] being born in how can its arising be
dependent arising? something that is the present arising be arising Depends on this dependence on the dependent?
always approaching us spoken of as dependent arising? born”?
[on the basis of linear arising?
7.15
time]. Therefore it is
completely impossible
for the fact that
manifests before us to
have familiar relation
with clear and concrete
birth.
That which comes into hings and phenomena Whatever that comes to Whatever is Whatever is If the now-arising's
being dependently, that existing clearly one by be dependently, that is dependently arisen, dependently arising, arising is dependent
is inherently peaceful. one are the world, and inherently peaceful. Such a thing is that is by nature on that which gives
Therefore arising and this world is subjectively Therefore, that which is essentially peaceful. pacified. Therefore, rise to it, then the
presently arising are thought of as a very presently arising as well Therefore that which is being born and what is now-arising is
peaceful. stable existence. as arising itself are arising and arising itself born too are pacified. peaceful. Both the
7.16
Therefore situations peaceful. Are themselves nowarising and that
that can be seen in front peaceful. which gives rise to it
of us as very stable are are peaceful.
just real existence,
which is actually seen in
front of us.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 39


If there is any non- What can never exist in If a certain non-arisen If a nonarisen entity If any unborn thing If the non-arising
arisen being, it would be this world can never be existent is evident Anywhere exists, That existed anywhere, on exists, then it must
arisen by being found thought to exist at all. somewhere, then that entity would have to being born that have arisen. If the
anywhere. Where the Even when existence is would arise. When such arise. But if it were [unborn] thing would non-arising does not
being does not exist, it not clear in concrete a thing does not exist, nonexistent, what could not exist. If so, what exist, then how could
is arisen by what? situations, such how can an existent arise? would be born? it arise?
7.17
situations are accepted arise?
as what is not real, and
even the word existence
can manifest itself as
not real.

If the arising of the When we have begun to If arising were to If this arising Gave rise If that which has been If the arising of the
presently arising is notice that the facts produce this present to that which is arising, born gives birth to what now-arising arises,
caused by having arisen, that manifest in front of arising, which arising By means of what is being born, what what gives rise to it?
again, which arising us must be just the would again produce arising Does that arising [other thing] that has
would give rise to that [true] phenomena, then that arising of that arise? been born would be
arising? the external world arising? giving birth to that
manifests as it is. When which has been born?
7.18 the world manifests as
phenomena, then we
prefer to grasp the
phenomena themselves
[rather than our
concept of the external
world].

If another causes this If the world manifests If this arising were to If another arising gives If another [thing] that If an earlier arising
arising, then arising is as different [from what produce another, arising rise to this one, There has been born gives gives rise to the
an infinite regress. In is described in the would turn out to be would be an infinite birth [to it], this would arising of the now-
that way, then, all non- previous verse], the infinite regression. If regress. If something be endless. If it is born arising, then there is
arising is arisen by the world of phenomena the non-arising is arisen, nonarisen is arisen, without [another] which an infinite regress. 3
arisen. would actually become then it will produce Then all things co u Id has been born [OR if it is But if that which
7.19 a very unstable world. In everything in this arise in this way. born without being gives rise to all
such a situation what manner. born], everything would arising is non-arising,
has not manifested be born like that [i.e. then the now-arising
seems to have causelessly]. could arise.
manifested already, and
then it is necessary to
take the view that all

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 40


things and phenomena
have manifested already
since the beginning.

Therefore the arising of To the same degree as As such, neither the Neither an existent nor Thus it is not reasonable Therefore, neither
what exists and the real phenomena arising of an existent a nonexistent Can be for what exists or does being nor non-being
arising of what does not manifest themselves in nor the arising of a non- properly said to arise. not exist to be born. It can arise, as stated
exist do not occur. the real world, all that is existent is p_roper. Even has been shown above above in 1, Verse 6.
"Existence and non- abstract is never so is the arising of that that there is no existent
existence” have been restricted by anything in which is both existent or non-existent.
discussed previously [I. the world at all. Before and non-existent, and
7.20 6-7]. anything subjective or this has been previously
anything objective has explained.
yet appeared in this
world, what has been
realized already
manifests itself in front
of us as the real world.

The arising of a The real circumstances The arising of an As it is taught before It is not tenable for a We cannot say that
presently ceasing being of the world, which existent that is ceasing with "For neither an thing that is perishing to the dissolving of a
does not occur. That manifest themselves in is not appropriate. existent nor a be born. It is not thing arises because
being which is not now the condition of self- Whatever existent that nonexistent." 21. The tenable for that which is that which is
presently ceasing does regulation, can never is non-arising, that arising of a ceasing not perishing to be a dissolving is no
not occur. manifest themselves in existent too is not thing Is not tenable. But thing. longer arising. Nor
[the abstract concept appropriate. to say that it is not can we say that the
of] existence at all. At ceasing Is not tenable arisen is not
7.21 the same time, when for anything. dissolving because all
the real circumstances things that have
are not regulated by the arisen are dissolving.
real circumstances
themselves, it is
impossible for the
concept of existence to
manifest itself at all.

No being that has It I is perfectly An existent that has A static existent does A thing that has An enduring thing
endured stays, and a impossible for that endured is not not endure. A nonstatic remained does not that has arisen does
7.22 being that has not which is unstable to stationary, nor i s an existent does not remain. A thing that has not endure. A non-
endured does not stay. exist in the state of existent that has not endure. Stasis does not not [yet] remained does enduring thing does
The presently enduring stability, and it is endured. The presently endure. What nonarisen not remain. That which not endure. That

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 41


does not stay and so impossible for that enduring is not can endure? is remaining also does which has arisen is
which non-arisen stays? which has been realized stationary. What non- not remain. What dissolving [and
already to newly arisen can stay? unborn [thing] can therefore not
become stable. Because remain? enduring]. How can
that which is actually that which has not
stable already can never arisen be enduring?
newly become stable, it
is absolutely impossible
for that which has not
yet appeared to become
stable at all.

The endurance of a The stable state Duration of an existent The endurance of a It is not possible for a That which is
presently ceasing being [always] exists in the that is ceasing is not ceasing entity Is not thing that is perishing to dissolving is not
does not occur. That self-regulated condition appropriate. Whatever tenable. But to say that remain. It is not enduring. All that has
being which is not now and _ never manifests existent that is non- it is not ceasing Is not possible for that which arisen is dissolving.
presently ceasing does into existence. If the ceasing is also not tenable for anything. is not perishing to be a
not occur. stable state [some appropriate. thing.
other hypothetical kind
of state, which is not
7.23
self-regulated] existed
in an unbalanced
situation, it would be
completely impossible
for such a stable state
to manifest into
existence.

All of the beings alwaysThe things and When all existents are Inasmuch as the nature If all things at all times All living beings that
[experience] the events phenomena of the always of the nature of of all things Is aging and are aging and dying have arisen are
of old age and death. universe, including decay and death, which death, Without aging phenomena, what subject to aging and
Where do which beings aging and death, occur existents that are and death, What things are there which death. Are there any
endure without old age in all existences, and at without decay and existents can endure? could remain without living beings that do
7.24
and death? every moment. If they death can stay? aging and dying? not age and die?
do not have aging or
death, it is completely
impossible for them to
keep their stability.
Enduring should endure When relying upon the The endurance of an Stasis cannot endure It is not reasonable for Enduring cannot
7.25 with the having endured stable state, or when enduring thing based on through itself Or what remains to remain endure through
but neither of them is relying upon an the endurance of itself through another stasis. due to something else itself, nor can it

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 42


reasonable. just as the unstable state, the or of another is not Just as arising cannot that remains or due to endure through
arising of arising is not established stability of proper. It is like the arise from itself Or from itself. This is like how another enduring,
from itself or another. the world can never be absence of arising of another arising. what has been born is just as arising can
regulated by anything arising, either from not given birth to by neither arise from
other than the real itself or from another. itself or another. [cf. itself nor from
world itself. Even in v.18-19] another arising [as
such a situation the real shown above].
phenomenon never
relies upon the
subjective soul or the
objective spirit at all.

Neither that which has What is not regulated That which has not The ceasing of whahas What has ceased does The dissolved does
ceased ceases nor that can never be regulated ceased does not cease. ceased does not not cease. What has not not dissolve. The not-
which has not ceased at all, and even what is That which has ceased happen. What has not ceased also does not yet-dissolved does
ceases, so also the regulated already can also does not cease. yet ceased does not cease. Likewise what is not dissolve. The
presently ceasing. What never be regulated Even so is that which is cease. Nor does that ceasing also does not. dissolving of that
ceases that has not again. In such a real ceasing. Is it the unborn which is ceasing. What What unborn [thing] can which is dissolving
arisen? situation there is just that ceases? . . . . nonarisen can cease? cease? [cf. v. 22] does not dissolve.
the simple fact that Can the non-arisen
7.26
something has been dissolve?
regulated really already,
and at the same time it
is completely impossible
for that which has not
been born to have been
regulated already.

Therefore the cessation The more the real state The cessation of an The cessation of what is It is not possible for a Neither the enduring
of the enduring being of existence is fixed, the existent that has static Is not tenable Nor thing which has nor the non-enduring
does not occur. more difficult it is for endured is not is the cessation of remained to cease. It is dissolves.
Moreover, the cessation the state of self- appropriate. The Something not static also not possible for a
of a non-enduring being regulation to exist. cessation of an existent tenable. thing which has not
does not occur. When the state of that has not endured is remained to cease.
7.27
existence is not fixed, also not appropriate.
the state of self-
regulation — can realize
itself much easier than
in any other condition.

7.28 Indeed, a state does not When relying upon Indeed, a certain state Being static does not A particular state [of The endurance of a

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 43


cease on account of concrete facts or relying [of existence] does not cease Through being something] does not thing cannot explain
itself, and a state does upon circumstances, cease from a state static itself. Nor does cause that particular its ceasing to endure,
not cease on account of things and phenomena identical with its own. being static cease state itself to cease. nor can its ceasing to
another state. do not enter into the Nor does a state [of Through another Moreover, another endure be explained
self-regulated state existence] cease from instance of being static. particular state does through the
newly. Even when another state different not cause that endurance of
relying upon abstract from its own. particular state to something else [for
concepts, which are cease. example, the
different from concrete endurance of
facts, or when relying dissolving?].
upon circumstances, it is
completely impossible
for abstract concepts to
newly come into the
self-regulated state.

When the arising of all When the highest state Indeed, when the When the arising of any When the birth of all No arising, no
events does not take among all balanced arising of all things is entity Is not tenable, phenomena is not dissolving.
place, then the states has not yet not appropriate, then Then the cessation of possible, then the
cessation of all events appeared, The highest the cessation of all any entity Is not cessation of all
7.29 does not happen. self-regulation among things is also not tenable. phenomena is not
all balanced states appropriate. possible.
never manifests itself at
all.

Therefore, the cessation The more we depart Furthermore, the For an existent thing Cessation is not That which is [being]
of a being that exists from reality, the more cessation of a real Cessation is not tenable. possible in an existent cannot dissolve. That
does not take place. In self-regulation does not existent is not A single thing being an thing. Thingness and which is [being]
identity, indeed, neither manifest itself. It is appropriate. Indeed, in ' entity and A nonentity is nothingness are not cannot not-be.
a being or a non-being completely impossible the context of identity, not tenable. possible in one.
7.30
happen. for existence to exist neither existence nor
only at one place, so non-existence is
nonexistence can never appropriate.
manifest itself
anywhere at all.
And the cessation of a That which is abstract The cessation of an Moreover, for a Cessation is not That which is not
being that does not can never manifest unreal existent is also nonentity, Cessation possible also in what is [non-being] cannot
exist does not take itself as existence, not appropriate, just as would be untenable. not a thing. This is dissolve. Can the
7.31 place, just as a second which is self-regulated a second beheading [of Just as a second similar to how there is beheaded be
beheading does not [in the real world], at all. a person] is not evident. beheading Cannot be no cutting off a second beheaded a second
occur. That which is abstract is performed. head. [i.e. a person time?

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 44


plainly intellectual cannot be beheaded
consideration and can twice]
never grasp that
individually
independent things and
phenomena are just the
real world itself.

There is no cessation on Self-regulation can There is no cessation by Cessation does not Cessation does not exist Dissolving does not
account of itself or on never be realized by itself or by another cease by means of itself. by its own self, nor does dissolve itself, nor is
account of another, just relying upon the entity, just as the arising Nor does it cease by cessation [exist] by it dissolved by
as the arising of arising personal soul, and self- of arising is neither by means of another. Just something else. This is another dissolving,
is not out of itself or out regulation is never the itself nor by another. as arising cannot arise like how what has been just as arising can
of another. same as the function of from itself Or from born is not given birth neither arise from
the objective spirit. The another arising. to by itself or another itself nor from
true phenomena in their [cf. 25] another arising [as
7.32 pure meaning do not shown above].
rely upon the human
subjective soul [or
mind]; in the same
manner neither do
phenomena in their true
meaning rely upon the
objective spirit.

With the non- The external world can With the non- Since arising, ceasing, Because birth and Since arising,
establishment of never really exist in establishment of and abiding Are not remaining and perishing enduring, and
arising, duration, and appearance, continuity, arising, duration and established, there are are not established, dissolving cannot
cessation, conditioning and destruction, and at destruction, the no compounded things. there is no conditioned. happen, there are no
does not exist. Where the same time it can conditioned does not If all compounded Because the real things that arise,
there is no never really exist in exist. With the non- things are conditioned is utterly endure, or dissolve. If
establishment of what is not real. If the establishment of the unestablished, How unestablished, how can there are no such
7.33 conditioning, how will external world has not conditioned, how could could the the unconditioned be things, how can the
the unconditioned be become real to a there be the uncompounded be established? ordinary phenomenal
proved? sufficient degree, it is unconditioned? established? world exist?
also impossible for any
world other than the
external world to
actually manifest itself.

7.34 As illusion, as dream, as For example illusions, As an illusion, a dream, a Like a dream, like an Like a dream, like a It is all a dream, an

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 45


an imaginary city in the dreams, or the fantastic city of the gandharvas, illusion, Like a city of magician’s illusion, like a illusion, like a city of
sky, so have arising, city of Gandharva, so have arising, Gandharvas, So have city of gandharvas, the gods floating in
endurance, and These are all just endurance and arising, abiding, And likewise birth and the heavens. So much
destruction been abstract expressions of destruction been ceasing been explained. likewise remaining, for arising, enduring,
illustrated. words, which are exemplified. likewise perishing are and dissolving.
absolutely — the same taught.
as the verbal
expressions of
appearance, continuity,
and — destruction.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 46


Chapter 8

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the
Analysis of Action and Examination of Action Examination of Agent Investigation of Act and The Agent and the
8 Fusion of Action and
Agent and the Agent and Action Actor (Actors) Action
Conduct
A true agent does not What really exists is This really existent This existent agent One who exists as an A real agent is not an
do this true act. Nor called conduct or action, agent does not perform Does not perform an actor does not do that agent [that is, cannot
does a true agent but it is not true that a really existent action. existent action. Nor which exists as an act. act]. An unreal (non-
attempt a true act. what exists in the real Neither is it intended does some nonexistent One who does not exist existent) agent is not
world [already] that a really non- agent Perform some as an actor also does an agent [that is,
produces the world. existent agent performs nonexistent action. not do that which does cannot act].
8.1 Conduct can never be a really non-existent not exist as an act.
something abstract, and action.
the abstract concept of
action has its natural
tendency to pursue its
character, which is
abstract.
There is no activity of a Without the real A really existent entity An existent entity has One who exists has no That which is [being]
true action and so it practice of actual has no· activity. no activity. There would activity; [something] does not act. Action
would be without an conduct, the abstract Therefore, action would also be action without would also exist as an in a world of real
agent. There is no concept of action might be without an agent. A an agent. An existent act without an actor. beings would be
activity of a true agent not have any relation really existent entity entity has no activity. One who exists has no action without an
and so it would be with the doing of a real has no activity. The re would also be activity; [something] agent. An agent in a
8.2
without action. act. Without real action Therefore, even an agent without action. would also exist as an world of real beings
in the real world a agent would be without actor without an act. would be an agent
person who acts might action. without action.
not have any relation
with the real act of
doing.
If an untrue agent does When the abstract If a non-existent agent If a nonexistent agent If one who does not If a non-existent
an untrue act, the act world is recognized were to perform a non- Were to perform a exist as an actor did that agent performs a
would be without a clearly as the abstract existent action, the nonexistent action, which does not exist as non-existent action,
8.3 cause and the agent world, action and the action would be without Then the action would an act, the act would then both action and
would be without a practice of action are a cause, and the agent be without a cause And have no cause; the actor agent would be
cause. identified as one. It is too would be without a the agent would be too would have no uncaused.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 47


possible that action cause. without a cause. cause.
might exist as
something that is not
understandable, and a
person who acts might
also exist as something
which is not
understandable.
Where the cause does When we do not have a When a cause does not Without a cause, the If there were no cause, No cause, no effect.
not exist, neither the sincere attitude, it is exist both the effect effect and Its cause will effect and cause would No cause, no agent.
antecedent cause nor impossible for us to and the sufficient not occur. Without this, not be evident. If they No agent, no activity
the act to be done recognize either the condition are not activity and Agent and were non-existent, [no power to act]. No
occur. Where these do accomplishment of an evident. When these are action are not possible. activity and agent and activity, no action.
not exist, the activity, act or the cause of non-existent, activity, doing would not be
the agent, and the act action at all. When we agent and performance evident.
to be done do not occur. do not have a sincere of action are also not
8.4
attitude, it is impossible evident.
for us to recognize that
the real act of doing and
the practice of action
can be perfectly
identified. When we do
not have the attitude of
practicing o
Neither [action] in The real world, which is With the non- If activity, etc., are not If activity etc. did not If there is no action
accord with the just the fusion of the occurrence of activity, possible, Entities and appear, dharma and [as implied by both
teaching nor [action] universal rule and the etc., good and bad are nonentities are not adharma would not be essentialism and
not in accord with the non-universal rule, can also not evident. When possible. If there are evident. If dharma and nihilism], then
teaching occurs in the never be recognized both good and bad do neither entities nor adharma did not exist, nothing arises. If
existence of activity, really when the real act, not exist, a fruit arising nonentities, Effects there would be no fruit nothing arises, then
etc. The effect does not and so forth, never exist from these would also cannot arise from them. that comes from them. there is no
exist in [action] in at all. When the world not be evident; phenomenal world.
8.5
accord with the of the universal system
teaching nor in [action] is not real and the world
not in accord with the of the non-universal
teaching, so it does not system is not real, it is
occur. impossible for any
result, which has been
produced concretely, to
be recognized at all.
8.6 Where the effect does In reference to effects, When the fruit does not f there are no effects, If there were no fruit, If there is no

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 48


not exist, the path goes when our attitudes are exist, the path of liberation and Paths to the path of liberation phenomenal world,
not to heaven and not not realistic, and we are release or of heaven is higher rea lms will not and higher states would then there is no path
to liberation, and the not perfectly free, Then not appropriate. This exist. So all of activity
not be appropriate. of liberation, and
purposelessness of all the supreme happiness would imply the futility Would be without Also it would follow ordinary existence is
activities follows. does not manifest itself. of all activity purpose. that all activities are without purpose.
meaningless.
A true or untrue agent The practice of real An agent who is both An existent and One who exists and It cannot be that an
does not do what is true action is just the real existent and nonexistent agent Does does not exist as an agent that is both
or untrue, because world as the fusion of nonexistent does not not perform an existent actor does not do what real and unreal
existence and non- the concrete world and perform an action that and nonexistent action. exists and does not performs actions
existence are indeed the abstract world, but is both existent and Existence and exist [as an act]. Since that are both real
mutually contradictory. it is not true that the non-existent, for they nonexistence cannot existence and non- and unreal. (It is
fusion of the concrete are self-contradictory. pertain to the same existence are mutually impossible for the
and the abstract Where can existence thing. For how could contradictory in one same thing to be
8.7 actually produces the and non-existence they exist together? [thing], where can they both real and unreal
practice of action. The coexist? exist? at the same time.)
mutual opposition
between the concrete
and the abstract is just
reality, and so there is
no place where the
abstract solely exists by
itself.
An existent [act] is not It is completely A non-existent action is An actual agent Does One who exists as an It cannot be that a
done by a non-existent impossible for the not performed by a not perform a nonactual actor does not do an act real agent performs
agent and a non- abstract to be produced presently existing action. Nor by a which is not existent. an unreal action. It
existent [act] is not by the concrete, and it is agent. Nor is an existent nonactual one is an One who does not exist cannot be that an
done by an existent also completely action performed by a actual one performed. [as an actor] also does unreal agent
agent. Indeed, in that impossible for the presently non-existent From this, all of those not do what exists [as performs a real
case, all these errors concrete to be agent. Indeed, if that errors would follow. an act]. Here too faults action. (From
8.8
follow. produced by the were to be the case, all will follow for one. believing these
abstract at all. (This is errors relating to the things, all sorts of
so] because even agents [mentioned errors follow.)
miscellaneous vices also earlier] would follow.
rely upon a person, who
really acts, in order to
realize them concretely.
No true agent does an It is absolutely For reasons stated An existent agent Does One who exists as an It cannot be that a
untrue or both true and impossible for the above, an agent who not perform an action actor does not do what real agent performs
8.9 untrue act for the abstract world or the has come to be existent that Is unreal or both does not exist as an act an action that is
reasons above. concrete world to does not perform an real and unreal As we and what neither exists either unreal or both

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 49


produce the real world, action that is non- have already agreed. or not [as an act], real and unreal . . . .
which is the fusion of existent or both because of what was
the abstract world and existent and non- demonstrated by the
the concrete world. existent. proof above.
Before it is discussed
with words or
considered in the brain,
a real act as a fact has
disappeared from the
area of discussion
already.
Also no untrue agent It is also completely For reasons 'Stated A nonexistent agent One who does not exist It cannot be that an
does an act that is real impossible for the above, an agent who Does not perform an as an actor does not do unreal agent
or both a real and abstract world to has come to· be non- action that Is unreal or what exists as an act performs an action
unreal act for the produce the concrete existent does not both real and unreal As and what neither exists that is either real or
reasons above. world or the fusion of perform an action that we have already agreed. or not [as an act], both real and unreal .
the concrete world and is existent or both because of what was ...
8.10 the abstract world at all. existent and non- demonstrated by the
Before it is discussed existent. proof above.
with words or
considered in the brain,
the real practice of
action is already
complete.
A true or untrue agent The real world, which is An agent that has come An existent and One who neither exists It cannot be that an
does not do a real or just the fusion of the to be both existent and nonexistent agent does nor does not exist as an agent that is both
unreal act. This too is concrete and the non-existent does not not perform an action actor does not do that real and unreal
understood from the abstract, is solely perform an action that that Is unreal or both which exists and does performs an action
reasons above. moving as it is, and exists and does not real and unreal As we not exist as an act. Here that is either unreal
neither the concrete nor exist . This too should have agreed. too this is to be known or both real and
the abstract can ever be be understood in terms through the proof unreal . . . .
8.11 the same as the practice of the reasons adduced demonstrated above.
of action itself. Before it above .
is discussed with words
or considered in the
brain, a real act as a fact
has disappeared from
the area of discussion
already.
The agent depends on It is very clear that An agent proceeds Action depends upon An actor depends on We must say that
8.12 action and that depends behavior is a kind of depending upon action the agent. The agent acts and acts too occur action depends upon

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 50


on an agent. We see no action, and it is also and action proceeds itself depends on in dependence on an the agent, and the
other established clear that an action is depending upon the action. One cannot see actor. Apart from this, agent depends upon
reason action sets in behavior. It is agent. We do not any way To establish one does not see a the action. Agent and
motion. completely impossible perceive any other way them differently. cause which is action cannot exist
for action to begin to of establishing (them). established. independently of
move as if it is different each other.
from action, and the
cause of happiness is
the ability to look at
everything without any
prejudice.
Thus from the Although there may be Following this method From this elimination of Likewise, one should From this negation of
“rejection” of the agent moments when we do of the rejection of agent agent and action, One understand clinging, independently
and of actions and not notice our action, and action, one should should elucidate because act and actor existing agents and
agents, the method for the state in which action understand. grasping. appropriation in the are dispelled. actions, an
knowledge of clinging has not stopped is just The remaining existents same way. Through Remaining things too understanding of
and all the rest about the real situation of should be critically action and agent All should be understood clinging should arise.
beings should come to action. The fact that the examined in terms of remaining things should by means of actor and Through this analysis
light. real practice of real the concepts of action be understood. act. of action and agent
8.13 action is really and agent. all else should be
accomplished always comprehended.
exists in the real
situation of the fusion
between action and a
person who acts, and
such action maintains
and develops all other
things and phenomena.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 51


Chapter 9

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the Investigation of the
Analysis of Prior Examination of the Prior Examination of the Prior
9 moment just before the Presence of Something
Existence Entity Entity
Present Prior (Already)
Some say: “He, whose Seeing, hearing, and "For whomsoever there Since sight and hearing, Some say that whatever
seeing, hearing, etc., other sense perceptions exists seeing,hearing, etc., and Feeling, is involved in seeing,
and also feeling, etc., are just manifested at etc., and feeling, etc., he etc„ exist, He who has hearing etc. and feeling
exist, exists prior to the present moment. exists prior to these." So and uses them Must etc. exists prior to them.
these.” And before those sense do some declare. exist prior to those,
9.1
perceptions on, it is some say.
said that something real
exists in the identified
situation.

Indeed, how will there When sense How can there be If there were no If [that] thing is not
be seeing, etc., perceptions such as seeing, etc. of an existent thing, How evident, how can there
belonging to one not seeing and so forth are existent who is not could seeing, etc., arise? be seeing etc?
present? Therefore, not perceived, it is evident? Therefore, it is It follows from this that Therefore, the presence
prior to these, he exists impossible for anything determined that, prior prior to this, there is an [of that] thing [must]
as a being that is to exist at all, therefore, to 'these things, such an existent thing. exist before them.
9.2 present. Even in existences, or existent is.
even just before the
present moment, reality
actually abides as the
regulated and stable
existence in front of us.

9.3 Whichever being Just in seeing, hearing, Whatever existent is How is an entity What configures/makes
present previous to and so forth, therefore determined as existing existing prior to Seeing, known that thing which
seeing, hearing, etc., just in the sense prior to seeing, hearing, hearing, etc., and The is present before seeing
and to feeling, etc., by perceptions, Things and etc., and also feeling, felt, etc., itself known? and hearing etc. and
what means is he phenomena have etc., by what means is feeling etc.?
caused to be discerned? existed before the he [it] made known?
ordered situations have
begun, and reality itself
has been found there
without relying upon

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 52


anything other than
reality.

If this [being] is present Even when the sense If he is determined as If it can abide Without If it were present even
without seeing, etc., perceptions such as existing even without the seen, etc., Then, without seeing etc.,
these will doubtless seeing and so forth do seeing, etc., without a doubt, They there would be no
exist without him. not exist at all, things undoubtedly even these can abide without it. doubt that they would
and phenomena exist in [i.e., seeing, etc.] will exist even without it.
stable situations as they exist without him.
are. Those things and
9.4 phenomena will
continue to exist in the
future, because if they
did not exist, there
would be no place
where we could rest
comfortably.

Someone is driven by Things go on relying Someone is made Someone is disclosed It is illuminated by


something, something is upon things, and things known by something. by something. them; they are
driven by someone. are compelled to move Something is made Something is disclosed illuminated by it. How
Where is there someone forward relying upon known by someone. by someone. Without could it exist without
without something, and things. Even though How could there be something how can them? How could they
where is there there is nothing to be someone without someone exist? Without exist without it?
something without seen, something moves something and someone how can
someone? forward, and something something without something exist
9.5
is compelled by someone?
something [else] to
move forward in due
course, and something
is produced somewhere
even though there is
nothing to be seen.

Someone does not Relating with Someone is not evident White prior to all of It is not evident prior to
occur prior to all, to everything, and relating prior to all of seeing, seeing, etc., That prior the totality of seeing
seeing, etc. Again, by with sense perceptions etc. Again, on different entity doesn't exist, etc. From among
9.6 contrast, he is driven by such as seeing and so occasions, one could be Through seeing, etc., by seeing etc. a different
means of seeing, etc. forth, it is completely made known by things another one, That other one illuminates [it] at
impossible for the different from seeing, one becomes disclosed. different times.
moment just before to etc. .

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 53


be recognized at all. In
the case of its being in
sense perceptions, such
as seeing and so forth,
or even in the case of its
relying upon something
different, or upon a
different time, the
moment just before has
gone ahead already.

If someone does not Relating with all things If someone existing If prior to all of seeing, If it is not evident prior
occur prior to all, to and phenomena, the prior to all of seeing, etc„ No prior entity to the totality of seeing
seeing, etc., how does moment just before etc. is not evident, how exists, How could an etc., how can it be
he occur prior to a never becomes the can someone existing entity prior To each evident prior to [each of
single seeing, etc. object of recognition by prior to each of seeing, seeing exist? them] seeing etc.
sense perceptions such etc. be evident. individually?
as seeing and so forth.
Departing from
concrete and individual
9.7
things and phenomena,
how is it possible for the
moment just before to
be recognized as
something real relying
upon the sense
perceptions such as
seeing and so forth?

If he is a seer while he is Action, which is seeing, If a seer is, at the same If the seer itself is the If the seer itself [were]
a hearer and while he is is just reality, and reality time, a hearer and hearer itself, And the the hearer and the
a feeler, he would be is just action, which is feeler, then someone feeler itself, at different feeler [were] it too, if it
prior to each single one hearing. In that case the would exist prior to limes, Prior to each of existed prior to each, in
and that is not reality is just action, each one [of the these he would have to that way it would not
reasonable. which actually realizes functions]. But this is arise. But this makes no make sense.
9.8
such an action. The not proper. sense.
moment just before can
exist departing from
each concrete thing,
and it is never yoked by
any concrete fact at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 54


Again, if a different If seeing has changed, If seer and hearer and If the seer itself is If the seer were
seer, a different hearer, hearing has changed, feeler are different, distinct, The hearer is different, the hearer
a different feeler exists, and even what has been then, when there is a distinct and the feeler is different, the feeler
a hearer would be memorized has seer, there also would distinct, Then when different, at the time
where there is a seer changed. Such changes be a hearer, and as such there is a seer the re the seer exists, there
9.9 and there would be a might have occurred there would be a would also be a hearer, would be a hearer.
plurality of selves, from changes between plurality of selves. And there would have Many selves would
seeing and hearing or to be many selves. come about.
from the existence of
too many human minds.

Seeing, hearing, etc., [However] perceptions, It [i.e., the self] is not Seeing and hearing, etc„ Also it is not evident in
and feeling, etc., also such as seeing, hearing, evident in the elements And feeling, etc., And the elements from
exist, but [the self] does and so forth, exist just from which seeing, that from which these which seeing and
not occur from them or at the present moment. hearing, etc., and are arisen: There is no hearing etc. and feeling
in these existents. Concrete things and feeling, etc. come to be. existent there. etc. occur.
phenomena exist in
9.10
sense perceptions, and
those things and
phenomena can never
be found in the past at
all.

If he whose seeing, The sense perceptions, If he, to whom belongs Seeing and hearing, etc„ If that to which seeing
hearing, etc., and such as seeing, hearing, seeing, hearing, etc. and And feeling, etc„ If that and hearing etc. and
feeling, etc., does not and so forth, exist here feeling, etc., is not to which they belong feeling etc. belong is
occur, then these are just at the present evident, then even does not exist, they not evident, they too
also not observed. moment. If it is these would not be themselves do not exist. could not be evident.
impossible for us to evident.
9.11 recognize real situations
like that, it is also
impossible for things
and phenomena in the
world to be perceived at
all.

He who is prior to, Before things and Wherein someone prior For whomever prior to, Reject the concepts “it
simultaneous with, or phenomena are to, simultaneous with or simultaneous with, or exists,” “it doesn’t exist”
9.12 posterior to seeing, etc., perceived by the sense posterior to, seeing, etc. after seeing, etc„ there about that which is not
does not occur and functions such as is not evident, therein is nothing, For such a evident prior to, now or

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 55


thereby, fictions seeing, hearing, and so thoughts of existence one, assertions like "it after seeing etc.
concerning existence forth, some kind of very and non-existence are exists" or "it does not
and non-existence are stable conditions have also renounced. exist"-Such conceptions
renounced. already been will cease.
established. It is not
clear whether such
conditions are reality or
not reality, but
something, which is not
exactly clear yet, has
been established
already.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 56


Chapter 10

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Analysis of Fire and Fuel Examination of the Examination of Fire and Examination of Fire and Investigation of Fire and
10 Fusion of Fire and Fuel Fuel Firewood (Fire)
Combustion
If fuel is fire, there is When what is called If fire were to be fuel, If fuel were fire Then If firewood were fire,
identity of agent and combustion is just fire, then there would be agent and action would actor and act would be
action. if fire is different the oneness of these identity of agent and be one. If fire were one. If fire were other
from fuel, then it would two is the same as action. If fire were to be different from fuel, than wood, it would
surely exist without fusion of behavior and different from fuel, Then it could arise occur even without
10.1 fuel. action. And if it were then it would exist even without fuel. wood.
possible for fire to without the fuel.
depart from
combustion, fire alone
might be able to exist
actually.
A permanent burning An abstract concept like A burning without a It would be forever [Fire] would burn
would be without a an eternal light might cause would be aflame; Flames could be permanently and would
cause for igniting. But be much different from eternally aflame. ignited without a cause. not arise from causes
thus the beginning is the real situation of a Furthermore, its Its beginning would be for burning. Starting [a
without purpose and no concretely burning light. commencement will be meaningless. In that fire] would be
action exists. It may be much more rendered meaningless case, it would be meaningless. If it were
10.2 realistic for us to view [useless]. When that without any action. like that, there would
such an abstract happens, it will be also be no act.
discussion as unworthy without a function.
[and] it may be making a
poor show for us to
begin [such a
discussion].
Igniting without a cause In another case, if we A burning without a Since it would not Because [fire] does not
is independent from the throw away our mind of cause, because it is not depend on another depend on anything
sequel. But thus the indifference, it might be contingent on another Ignition would be else, it would not arise
10.3 beginning is without reasonable for us to and, therefore, eternally without a cause. If it from causes for burning.
purpose and a think that [real] light is aflame, would imply the were eternally in If it burned
permanent burning not existence. In this meaninglessness of its flames, Starting it would permanently, starting it
follows. case also we would commencement. be meaningless. would be meaningless.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 57


begin what is not useful;
the idea of an eternal
light is too much
attached to an abstract
idea.
In that case, therefore, Even relying upon any Herein, if it is assumed So, if one thinks that Concerning this, if one
if “the fuel is presently method, it is completely that fuel is the present That which is burning is thinks that while
being ignited,” by what impossible for burning and, therefore, the fuel, If it is just this, burning it is firewood, if
means other than the combustion to create that. [i.e., burning] is How is this fuel being it is such only at that
fuel is that by which this combustion, and in such merely this [i.e., fuel), by burned? time, by what could that
is here so much as a situation the many what is fuel being firewood be ignited?
10.4
[ignited]? things and phenomena burnt?
may be the world itself.
The world may be
continuously burning,
and it may be possible
for burning to exist.
If it is not fuel that is It may be impossible for [Fuel] that is different is If they are different, Because [fire] is other, it
not reached by what is that which has not yet not reached; the un- and if one not yet would not connect; if it
other than fuel, the been accomplished to reached is not ignited. connected isn't did not connect, it
unburnable will not be esteemed as having Furthermore, that which connected, The not yet would not ignite; if it
burn. Preserving the been accomplished is not ignited does, not burned will not be did not ignite, it would
likeness of its own already, and it may be cease. That which does burned. They will not not die; if it did not die,
nature [permanent impossible for that not cease remains, like cease. If they do not it would also remain in
burning] will not be which cannot be one that has its own cease Then it will persist possession of its own
maintained by the non- accomplished to have mark. with its own characteristic.
10.5
extinction of the the possibility of being characteristic.
extinguished. accomplished. That
which cannot be
extinguished can never
be extinguished at all,
and a grammatical
gender will be
maintained as it is
forever.
If fire is different from However, when fire is If fire is different from Just as a man and a Just as a woman
fuel, it would reach for isolated from fuel it would reach the woman Connect to one connects with a man
fuel, just as a woman combustion, even fuel, just as a woman another as man and and a man too with a
10.6 reaches for a man and a combustion has would reach for a man woman, So if fire were woman, although fire is
man for a woman. departed from its and a man for a woman. different from fuel, Fire other than wood, it is fit
originally perfect and fuel would have to to connect with wood.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 58


condition. The female be fit .for connection.
gender [combustion]
can include the male
gender [fire], and the
male gender [fire] can
include the female
gender [combustion]
within it.
Fire is different from In another case, if fire The fuel that is And, if fire and fuel If fire and wood
fuel for fuel would be has departed from different from fuel may Preclude each other, eliminated each other,
reached only if a combustion, it may be reach the fuel only if Then fire being even though fire is
separation of one from possible for combustion fire and fuel were to different from fuel, It something other than
the other would exist in to take whichever exist mutually must stiIl be asserted wood, it would have to
fire and fuel. position it favors. separated. that they connect. connect with wood.
However, when fire and
10.7
combustion have been
fused into just one, aha,
they might conceal
themselves within each
other as a perfect
fusion without noticing
this fusion.
If fire is dependent on The existence of If fuel is contingent If fire depends on fuel, If fire were dependent
fuel and fuel is combustion is the upon fuel and fuel upon And fuel depends on on wood and wood
dependent on fire, recognition of flame, fire, which of them is fire, On what are fire were dependent on fire,
which is descended and the recognition of pre-accomplished so and fuel established as of what becomes fire
from which so that fire flame creates that fire could be dependent? Which one and wood dependently,
and fuel are dependent? combustion. Before contingent upon fuel? is established first? which would be
either combustion or established first?
10.8 fire manifests itself,
there is the fact of our
ability to recognize
concrete flame, and
then it is just the
creation of combustion
for us to recognize fire
as it is.
If fire is dependent on If it is true that If fire were to be If fire depends on fuel, If fire were dependent
fire’s fuel, the combustion is just the contingent upon fuel, It would be the on wood, [already]
10.9 establishment of proof recognition of the there would be proof of establishment of an established fire would
will thus be the existence of fire, we can fire that is already established fire. And be established [again].

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 59


existence of fuel where say that the real proved [to exist]. When the fuel could be fuel Firewood also would be
there is no fire. substance might exist in that is the case, even Without any fire. [such] even without fire.
fire itself. Even though fuel would exist without
real combustion exists fire.
actually here and now,
there may be the simple
fact of fire actually not
existing in some
concrete place or at
some concrete time in
the future.
What demonstrates the What is really regarded If events are to be truly If that on which an If a thing (A) is
dependence as real substance is contingent, 'then they entity depends Is established
demonstrated by the existence, and such should be mutually established on the basis dependently (on B),
dependence of which existence is realized justcontingent or Of the entity depending [but] if what it depends
being? If what is to be by relying upon what is dependent. If any one on it, What is upon (B) is established
depended upon is what realized. When that of two mutually established in also in dependence on
10.10
has demonstrated that, which is regarded is just contingent entities is to dependence on what? that very thing (A), what
which is dependent on real existence, what is it be found in a would be established in
which? that is really in front ofsubstantial or essential dependence on what?
us actually? way in the other, then
the notion of
contingence is nullified.
How is that dependence Relying upon the fact Whatever existent that What entity is How can a thing (A)
demonstrated by the that we have interest in is established through established through which is established
being who is not something, what contingence, how can dependence? If it is not dependently (on B) be
established in becomes concrete is that, if it is not yet established, then how dependent (on B) when
dependence? But the called “existence,” and established, be could it depend? it (A) is not established?
demonstration of so it may be impossible contingent? Even so However, if it is If one asks, “how can
dependence does not for what has not been (how can.] that which is established merely establishment be
10.11 occur in dependence. built up to become already established be through dependence, dependent?” It is not
something interesting. contingent? For its That dependence makes reasonable for it (A) to
In such a situation even contingence is not no sense. be dependent.
what has been proper.
accomplished already is
not regarded as that
which is accepted as
interesting.
Fire is not dependent on The fact that Fire is not contingent Fire is not dependent There is no fire that is
10.12 fuel and fire is not combustion has been upon fuel; fire is not upon fuel. Fire is not dependent on wood;
independent of fuel. recognized is the non-contingent upon independent of fuel. there is also no fire that

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 60


Fuel is not dependent meaning of fire, and the fuel. Fuel is not Fuel is not dependent is not dependent on
on fire and fuel is not meaning of combustion contingent upon fire; upon fire. Fuel is not wood. There is no wood
independent of fire. is not its indifference to fuel is not non- independent of fire. that is dependent on
fire. To be without contingent upon fire. fire; there is also no
regard to combustion wood that is not
does not mean to be dependent on fire.
fire, and to be
indifferent to fire does
not mean combustion.
Where fire does not What is different from Fire does not come out Fire does not come Fire does not come
come from something the above does not of something different from something else, from something else;
other than fuel, fire come as fire, and it is nor is fuel seen to be in Nor is fire in fuel itself. fire also does not exist
does not occur. not true that fire is the fuel. Herein, with Moreover, fire and the in wood. Likewise, the
Certainly what has been found within regard to fuel, the rest rest are just like The remainder of wood has
said about gone, going, combustion. In that is stated as in the case moved, the not-moved, been shown by gone,
and not gone, and the sphere, we can of present moving, the and the goer. not-gone and going.
rest applies in the case understand even the moved and the not
of fuel. explanations of moved.
10.13 problems concerning
combustion by relying
upon the same theory
that explained the
problem on the basis of
[the recognition of]
“going,” [the memory
of] “having gone.” and
[the supposition of]
“not having gone.”
Again, fire is not fuel Combustion is not the Furthermore, fuel is not Fuel is not fire. Fire Wood itself is not fire;
and there is no fire same as flame, yet it is fire. Apart from fuel does not arise from fire is also not
other than from fuel. not true that flame there is no fire. Fire is anything different from something other than
Fire is not possessed by exists in a different not possessed of fuel. fuel. Fire does not wood. Fire does not
fuel and the fuels are place departing from Fuel is not in the fuel, possess fuel. Fuel is not possess wood; wood
not in the fire, nor is it combustion. A flame is nor is it [i.e., fire] in in fire, nor vice versa. does not exist in fire;
10.14
in them. not the imitation of them. that (fire) does not exist
combustion, and it is in it.
not also true that
combustion is the same
as concrete individual
things.
10.15 The process of self and Real flame, which is the Through the examples Through discussion of

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 61


grasping is explained fusion of [material] fire of fire and fuel, fire and fuel, The salf
from fire, and fuel, and combustion, can be together with the and the aggregates, the
along with the jar and explained as the examples of pot, cloth, pot and cloth All
cloth, etc., and all the
continuity of the real etc. every method of together, Without
rest without exception.fusion between analysis of the self and remainder have been
conceptual grasping have been explained.
consideration and sense explained without
perception. All things exception.
and phenomena include
much more real content
than can be seen, and
they rely upon much
more complicated
substances, which are
similar to the texture of
a woven cloth.
Those who speak about Thoughts and concrete Those who posit the I do not think that
the self and existence reality exist in things substantiality of the self Those who teach that
as different from beings and phenomena, and at as well as of discrete the self is the same as
do not have, I think, the same time they are existents, these I do not or different from the
knowledge about the also concrete individual consider to be experts entities Understand the
meaning of the teaching things. Thoughts and in the meaning of the meaning of the
[of the Buddha]. concrete things do not [Buddha's) message. doctrine.
always show their own
10.16 reality as things and
phenomena exactly as
they are, but you [who
do not believe in
Buddhism] continuously
make efforts to destroy
the meaning and value
of those things and
phenomena completely.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 62


Chapter 11

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the Examination of the Prior Investigation of
Analysis of Past and Examination of the
11 Termination of and Posterior Extremes of Before and
Future Limits Initial and Final Limits
Beginning and End Extremities After (Before)
The great sage said, Before the end of life The Great Sage has When asked about the When asked, “is a
“The prior limit is was noticed by the stated that the prior beginning, The Great before-extreme
unknown. Samsara is Great Sage, he said as end is not known. The Sage said that nothing is evident?” the great
without beginning or follows. The up and life-process is without known of it. Cyclic Muni said, “it is not.”
end. Indeed, there is no down changes in our beginning and end. existence is without end Samsara has no
beginning or end.” daily lives are much There is neither a and beginning. So there beginning, no end; it has
11.1 more excellent than the beginning nor an end. is no beginning or end. no before, no after.
best condition of our
lives, they are never [a
restriction like a nose
ring at all, and they
never belong to an
inferior condition.
Where would the The highest does not How could there be the Where there is no For that without
middle of what has no exist on the earth and middle of that which beginning or end, How beginning [and] end,
beginning or of what the lowest does not has neither a beginning could there be a where can a middle be
has no end be? exist on the earth, so nor an end? Therefore, middle ? It follows that in that? Therefore, it is
Therefore, the how is it possible for the the methods of thinking about this in not possible for it to
processes of the past, middle of the two to (distinguishing) the terms of Prior, have before, after, and
11.2 the present, and the exist on the earth? prior, the. posterior or posterior, and simultaneous phases.
future do not take place Therefore, the time both together (i.e., the simultaneous is not
here. before a fact, the time middle) are not appropriate.
after a fact, and the appropriate.
time at the middle can
never really exist as a
real fact at all.
If birth is first, old age Before birth has If birth were to come If birth came first, And If birth were before and
and death would be occurred, aging and first and decay and then old age and death, aging/death after, there
later, then birth would death might belong to death were to follow, Then birth would be would be birth without
11.3
be without old age and facts in the future. then birth would be ageless and deathless, aging/death and also
death and an immortal Youth, death, or birth without decay and And a deathless one without dying one
would have been born. can exist, and death, and an immortal would be born. would be born.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 63


furthermore it is would thus emerge.
possible for us to
expect the occurrence
of eternity too.
If birth is later, there After birth has occurred, If birth were to be If birth were to come If birth were after and
would be old age and then aging and death posterior and decay- after, And old age and aging/death before,
death from the might have begun. What death anterior, then the death first, How could how could there be an
beginning. How could is unreasonable can latter would be without there be a causeless uncaused aging/death
11.4 the old age and death never be born into the a cause. How could aging and death Of one which has no birth?
of the unborn be world; therefore it may there be decay-death of not born?
without a cause? be very difficult for us one who is not born?
to understand aging and
death.
Birth does not occur Birth is never yoked to Indeed, decay-death as Birth and age and death It is not suitable for
simultaneously with old either aging or death. concomitant of birth is Cannot occur at one birth and aging/death
age and death. He Both the desire to die not proper. (In that time. Then what is being to be simultaneous; that
would die by being born and the fact of being case,] what is in the born would be dying which is being born
11.5
and both would be born may not be so process of being born And both would occur would be dying and
without a cause. reasonable. will also be dying and without cause. both would be without
both would be rendered cause.
causeless.
Where the processes of In such a situation, the Wherever such methods When the series of the Why fixate on that birth,
the past, the future, and process before a of (discriminating) the prior, simultaneous, and that aging/dying, for
the present do not [particular] fact, the prior, the posterior and posterior Is not which the phases of
come forth, what do process after a fact, and the simultaneous do not possible, Why are you before, after,
they explain in detail the process at the same arise, why be obsessed led to posit This birth, simultaneity are
about birth, old age, time [as a particular by such birth and such aging, and death? impossible?
11.6 and death? fact] are not clear in decay-death. .
daily life. Many kinds of
aging and many kinds of
birth manifest
themselves as they are,
so what are aging and
death at last?
Cause and effect, The practice of action Effect and cause as well Not only is cyclic It is not just samsara
characteristic and and the method of as characterized and existence itself without alone that has no
characterized, feeler action are the same characteristic, together beginning, No existent before-extreme, cause
11.7 and feeling, and fact, an the form and with feeling and feeler has a beginning: Neither and fruit themselves,
whatever else, do not characteristics of things or whatever fruits there cause and effect; Nor and characteristics and
meaningfully exist. and phenomena are the are. character and the basis for
same, In reality, where characterized … characteristics

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 64


perceptions and that themselves,
which is perceived are
completely fused into
one, there is a simple
fact before us, and
there nothing other
than that. Therefore the
fact that there is
nothing other than that,
is the real fact.
The prior limit of Before the end of our The prior end of these is Nor feeling and the feeling and the feeler,
samsara does not only life has been not evident. Of the feeler; Whatever there whatever is suitable to
not occur, but also every recognized, nothing entire life-process as is: All entities Are bear meaning, also all
place prior to the limits pure and nothing well as of all existents, without beginning. things have no before-
of beings does not excellent can be found the prior end is not extreme.
occur. in our daily life. evident.
11.8
However, even before
the end of our life has
been recognized, all
things and phenomena
of the world already
really exist.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 65


Chapter 12

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Examination of Examination of Investigation of Anguish


12 Analysis of Suffering Examination of Pain
Suffering Suffering (Anguish)
Some say, ‘Suffering is Conduct done by Some assume that Some say suffering is Some assert that
self-caused, caused by oneself, conduct done suffering is self-caused, self-produced, Or anguish arises from
another, caused by both by another person, and caused by another, produced from another being made by self,
or uncaused.” But it conduct done both by caused by both or or from both. Or that it made by other, by both,
[suffering] does not oneself and another without a cause. arises without a cause. without cause. To do
occur as an effect. person are not always [Suffering as] such an It is not the kind of that is not suitable.
12.1 reasonable at all. Even effect is indeed not thing to be produced.
though the word pain appropriate.
wants to be a simple
and regulated single
word, the word pain is
not so accomplished
and fixed yet.
If it would be self- When something that is If [suffering were to be] If suffering came from If it were made by self,
caused, it would not be produced subjectively self-caused, then it itself, Then it would not therefore it would not
dependent. Skandhas exists, the existence of could not occur arise dependently. For be contingently arising,
[separate heaps of things and phenomena dependently. Indeed, those aggregates Arise because those
conditionings that make are not so clear. Things depending upon these in dependence on these aggregates arise
up a sense of and phenomena have aggregates, these other aggregates. contingently on these
12.2
personality] arise already manifested aggregates occur. aggregates.
dependent on these aggregates and the
boundless skandhas. world, [and we know
this] because it is very
clear that aggregates
exist really.
If these are different When things and If from these those that If those were different If that were other than
from those or those phenomena are seen as are different were to from these, Or if these this and if this were
would be some place different from their come to be, or if from were different from other than that, anguish
other than these, own form, this suggests those these different those, Suffering could would be made by other
12.3 suffering would be that the things and [things] were to come arise from another. and that would be made
caused by others and phenomena have to be', then suffering These would arise from by those others.
those caused by means changed from their would be caused by those others.
of these others. original form to another, for these are

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 66


another. There is the caused by those that are
possibility that conduct different.
done by another person
can produce some kind
of pain; however, this
suggests only that
things and phenomena
are producing
something different
relying upon another’s
intention or relying
upon the person who
acts.
If suffering is caused by ..When one’s own If suffering is caused by If suffering were caused If anguish were made by
the person himself, then personality itself one's own person, then by a person himself, one’s own person, who
[he would exist] without produces pain, it is that own person can Then who is that would that person be
suffering. Who is this necessary to think that exist without suffering. person-By whom who has made anguish
person himself by [without one’s own Who is he by whom suffering is caused-Who by himself, but is not
means of whom mistakes] there might suffering is self-caused? exists distinct from included in the anguish?
suffering is self-caused? be no pain. Even in cases suffering?
12.4 where one’s own
personality is only part
of the cause of the
occurrence of pain, it is
also necessary for one
to say that one has
produced the pain by
oneself.
If suffering is produced .When what has been If suffering were to be If suffering comes from If anguish arose from
by another person, to produced by another is produced by one person another person, Then another person, how
whom does this the cause of pain, the and given over to who is that person- could it be suitable for
suffering caused by situation might be only another, that suffering When suffering is given there to be [someone]
another apply since he that a simple fact exists is caused by the former. by another-Who exists not included in the
12.5 is without suffering? as it is. When the pain is How can the latter be distinct from suffering? anguish, who has been
just what another has identified without given it by another who
produced, then is there suffering? made the anguish?
anywhere to which we
could possibly flee from
the responsibility?
If suffering is produced When pain has been If suffering is caused by If another person If anguish arose [from]
12.6 by another person, who produced by someone another person, who is causes suffering, Who is another person, who

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 67


is the other person other than I, who is it that other person who, that other one Who would that other person
without suffering who that we call people himself without bestowed that be who, having made it,
caused and bestows it other than I? Even suffering, causes it and suffering, Distinct from gives it to someone
on another? though it is a natural bestows it on another? suffering? else, but is not included
fact for the practice of in the anguish?
action not to be
followed by pain, many
actual cases of pain are
exaggerations [resulting
from] putting the
responsibility on
another.
Since the self-nature of When conduct has not With the non- When self-caused is not Since it is not
cause is unexplained for been accomplished on establishment of self- established, How could established as made by
suffering, where is the side of the person causation, how can suffering be caused by self, how can anguish
there cause by another? himself, the cause of the there be suffering another? Whoever have been made by
Indeed the other, from pain never exists in the caused by an other? For, caused the suffering of other? [For] whatever
whose cause there is conduct of another. indeed, if another were another Must have anguish is made by
suffering, his suffering Another person to cause that suffering, caused his own other, that has been
12.7
would be self-caused. sometimes explains that in relation to him it suffering. made by his self.
the cause of pain has would be self-caused.
come from their own
conduct, but there may
be many cases in which
the person himself has
produced the pain.
Therefore, suffering is ..As much as conduct by So long as suffering is No suffering is self- Anguish is not made
not self-caused, indeed oneself is not the cause not self-caused, it is, caused. Nothing causes [by] self; that is not
it is not caused by of pain, pain is not indeed, not caused by itself. If another is not made by that itself. If it
means of itself. How can produced by pain itself, oneself. If the other self-made, How could is not made by an other
[suffering] be caused by therefore, If the were not to do it by suffering be caused by self, how can anguish be
another if [his] suffering conduct of another has himself, how could another? made by other?
12.8 would not be caused by not been done suffering be caused by
an other not the self? according to an evil another?
intention, there might
not be any possibility at
all that the pain has
been produced by the
other person.
If suffering would be Even in the case that If suffering were to be If suffering were caused If it is made by each,
12.9 caused by both, it would both oneself and caused by both, it would by each, suffering could anguish would be made

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 68


be caused one by one. another have produced be caused by each be caused by both. Not by both. Not made by
Where is the uncaused a cause of pain, it may individually. Whence can caused by salf or by self, not made by other,
suffering that is not be actions that were there be suffering that other, How could how can anguish have
self-caused or caused by
actually done one by is caused neither by suffering be uncaused? no cause?
another? one separately. another nor by ·oneself
Therefore when and is without a cause?
conduct done by
someone other than
oneself is the cause of
the pain, where can we
find an unreasonable
fact in the
interpretation that the
cause of pain is not
action done by another,
but has just occurred
from action done by
oneself?
Indeed, not only does Because the concretely It is not that the Not only does suffering Not only does anguish
the fourfold account of separated factors [birth, fourfold theory applied not exist In any of the alone not have the four
suffering not occur, but aging, sickness, and exclusively to suffering fourfold ways: No aspects, external things
the fourfold account of death] are not included is not evident. The external entity exists In too do not have the four
the downfall of beings in pain, it is completely fourfold theory any of the fourfold aspects.
also does not occur. impossible for us to pertaining to other ways.
recognize the four existents too is not
factors separately and evident.
12.10 concretely. Only what
can be seen by our eyes
really exists in the
world, so it is
completely impossible
for us to recognize the
four factors separately
and clearly in our
experience at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 69


Chapter 13

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of
Examination of Real Examination of Action Investigation of
13 Analysis of Disposition Compounded
Action and the Agent Samskaras (Change)
Phenomena
The Venerable One said, A society where the The Blessed One has The Victorious The Bhagavan said that
“whatever event is viewpoint of realism said that whatever is of Conqueror has said that whatever dharma is
deceptive, that is false.” does not work at all is deceptive nature, that is whatever Is deceptive is deceptive, that is false.
Deceptive events are in the world of vice, and delusion. All things that false. Compounded All conditions [are]
all dispositions, so they there is no opportunity are of deceptive nature phenomena are all deceptive dharmas, thus
13.1 are false. for saints to be involve dispositions. deceptive. Therefore they are false.
discussed. In the world Therefore, they are they are all false.
of vice it is not delusions.
meaningful for us to
rely upon reality and to
live in reality.
If whatever deceptive A world where the If, whatever that is of If whatever is deceptive
If whatever is a
event is false, then it is realistic attitude is deceptive nature is is false, What deceives?
deceptive phenomenon
deceived by what? This refused is the world of delusion , what is it The Victorious is false, what is
was said by the vice, where nothing is about which there is Conqueror has said deceptive about it [in
Venerable One to left to be stolen at all. delusion ? That too, about this That what way is it
13.2
illuminate openness. This was taught by the namely, that which emptiness is completelydeceptive]? That
saint, and the quietness illuminates emptiness, true. statement by the
in the balanced state is has been spoken of by Bhagavan is a complete
the guideline, which is the Blessed One. presentation of
shining forever. emptiness.
Since beings are viewed When real existence, Because of the All things lack Things have no essential
as having no self-nature which is not bound by perception of change, entitihood, Since nature because they are
in a changing nature subjective existence, cal the absence of self- change is perceived. seen to change into
and a being lacking self- be seen in things and nature of existents is There is nothing something else. Things
nature does not exist, phenomena, we can [recognized]. Because without entity Because do not lack an essential
13.3 then openness [is the look at nonsubjective of the emptiness of all things have nature because things
self-nature] of beings. existence in front of us. existents, there is no emptiness. are emptiness.
When objective existent without self-
existence really exists nature.
there, the balanced
states moving in things

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 70


and phenomena.
Whose would be the Even when it is Whose change would If there is no entitihood, If there were no
changing nature if self-
impossible for abstract there be, if self-nature What changes? If there essential nature, whose
nature does not occur? existence to exist, were not evident? were entity, How could [nature] would it be to
Whose would be the where is it — possible Again, whose change it be correct that change into something
changing nature if self-
for a world other than would there be, if self- something changes? else? If there were an
nature does occur? this world to exist [in nature were evident? essential nature, how
the univérse]? Even would it be possible to
13.4
when our mind is change into something
completely occupied by else?
abstract mental
functions, where is it
possible for another
world to exist [in the
universe] at all?
No changing nature, It is completely Neither change of A thing itself does not This itself does not
either of itself or of impossible for a world something in itself nor change. Something change into something
another, occurs. This is other than this world to of something different different does not else. The other itself
because a youth does be included into this is proper. The reason change. Because a too does not [either].
not age and an aged world, and at the same being that a youth does young man doesn't Because youth does not
one does not age. time this world is never not age nor does an grow old, And because age. Because age too
bound by a world other aged person age. and an old man doesn't does not age.
13.5 than this at all. As much grow old either.
as young people do not
become older (just at
the present moment) at
the same time even old
people do not become
older (just at the
present moment) at all
If a changing nature If we think that there is If change were to be of If a thing itself changed, If this itself changes
[were] of itself, then a world other than this something in itself, then Milk itself would be into something else,
milk would be butter. world, we could think milk itself would be curd. Or curd would milk itself would be
Since milk differs, the that milk and yogurt butter. Butterness have come to be An curds. Something other
nature of butter will be might be the same. But would then be entity different from than milk would be the
13.6 of what? milk might be something other than milk. being of curds.
somewhat different milk.
[from yogurt],and so the
existence of yogurt
might be later [than
milk].

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 71


If something would be If there exists the If there were to be If there were even a If a bit of the non-empty
non-open, then nothing slightest unbalance, something non-empty, trifle nonempty, existed, a bit of the
would be “open.” If there might never exist there would then be Emptiness itself would empty would also exist.
nothing is non-open, even a bit of the something called be but a trifle. But not If there did not exist a
why will there be open? balanced state at all. If empty. However, there even a trifle is bit of the non-empty,
13.7
the unbalanced state is nothing that is non- nonempty. How could how could the empty
never exists really, empty. How could there emptiness be an entity? exist?
where is it possible for be something empty?
the balanced state to
exist even in the future?
The conqueror taught The fact that the The Victorious Ones The victorious ones The Conquerors taught
openness as the balanced state is the have announced that have said That emptiness as the
refutation of all views. basis of all intuitive emptiness is the emptiness is the forsaking of all views.
But those who hold decisions is proclaimed relinquishing of all relinquishing of all Those who view
openness as a view are by many people, who views. Those who are views. For whomever emptiness are taught to
called irremediable. have exactly grasped possessed of the view emptiness is a view, be without realization
13.8 the truth. Relying upon of emptiness are said to That one will accomplish [incurable/incorrigible].
those people, it is be incorrigible. nothing
proclaimed that the
viewpoint based upon
the balanced state is
just the eternal Truth
itself.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 72


Chapter 14

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Investigation of
Examination of Examination of
14 Analysis of Combination Examination of Fusion Connections
Associations Connection
(Connection)
These three, seeing, the The object of seeing, The object of seeing, The seen, seeing, and The seen, the seeing
seen, and the seer, in the act of seeing, and the seeing and the seer, the seer: These three- and the seer: these
pairs or collectively, also the person who sees are these three do not pairwise or All together- three do not mutually
do not become mutually three kinds of strings, function in mutual Do not connect to one connect [as] pairs or all
combined. which make a plaited association either in another. [together].
cord of brilliant colors, pairs or all together.
but they are just the
14.1 combination of two and
two. Generally speaking,
it is not true that a
mutual relation is
always fusion, and there
is also a combination of
mutual relations
between two and two.
Thus passion, the Excitement, the excited Lust, the lustful as well Similarly desire, the Likewise desire, desiring
impassioned, and object condition, and the act of as the object of lust desirous one, the object and the desired, the
of passion would be being excited all are should be seen in the of desire, And the remaining afflictions
seen by means of these related with enjoyment. same way . . The remaining afflictions and also the remaining
14.2 three, as well as the Relying upon these remaining defilements And the remaining sense-fields do [not
remaining defilements three, there are serious as well ~ the remaining sources of perception connect] by three
and the remaining pains and at the same spheres of sense should Are understood in this aspects.
spheres of sensation. time there are places be seen in the triadic threefold way.
where we can rest. mode.
That combined Fusion does not rely Association is of the Since different things If the other connects to
difference of some upon anything different mutually different connect to one another, the other, because the
event with some other from fusion, and fusion [events]. Such But in seeing, etc., seen and so forth do
does not occur. Hence, does not belong to difference is not There is no difference, not exist [as] other,
14.3 beginning with seeing, anything different from evident in the objects of They cannot connect. therefore there is no
which of these do not fusion. It is completely seeing, etc. Therefore, connection.
become combined? impossible for fusion to they do not function in
be recognized as mutual association. .

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 73


anything different from
fusion. Fusion can be
seen in front of us as it
is [and it] clearly
manifests already, so it
is completely impossible
for fusion to progress
further [by] changing
itself.
Not only does An independent and It is not only that the Not only in seeing, etc., Not only are the seen
difference [in reference concrete thing can difference with regard Is there no such and so forth alone not
to] seeing, etc., not never change into a to objects of seeing, etc. difference: When one existing as other, it is
occur, even the fundamentally different is not evident; the thing and another are invalid for anything
difference of one event thing, and such a fact possibility of something simultaneous, It is also simultaneous with
joined in another does can never be recognized possessing difference not tenable that there is something to be other
not take place. by relying upon sensory jointly with another is difference. [than it].
perceptions like seeing, also not appropriate.
14.4 and so forth. In this
world there is some
thing that is excellent,
but at the same time it
is completely impossible
for anything that really
exists to manifest itself
as something different
from its original form.
Differences of one Between one thing and Different things are A different thing The other is other in
event from another another the difference dependent upon depends on a different dependence upon the
depend on [the fact is very clear, and different things. thing for its difference. other. Without the
that] one event is not something different and Different things are not Without a different other, the other would
different from another something non- without different thing, a different thing not be other. It is
without that other. different are moving as things. Because wouldn't be different. It invalid for whatever is
Which which depends things and phenomena, something depends is not tenable for that dependent on
14.5 on which so that from which are different. upon something, a which depends on something to be other
which it differs does not Even though there exist different thing is not something else To be than that.
take place? cases of things and appropriate. different from it.
phenomena that are
clear in their
characteristics, and
things and phenomena
that are unclear it their

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 74


characteristics, it is
completely impossible
for these two cases |
manifest themselves as
something that is
absolutely different
from their own
characteristics.
If one event is different If we could overcome If a thing is different If a different thing were If the other was other
than another from the difference between from another because it different from a than the other, then,
which it differs, it would two differences, we arises from a different different thing, Without without the other, it
be without that from would just imagine the thing, then it would a different thing, a would be other.
which it differs. But that possibility of movement exist even without that different thing could Without the other it
difference does not overcoming difference. i other thing. However, exist. But without that would not be other.
exist without the one However, there is no that other thing does different thing, that Therefore, it does not
14.6 from which it differs possibility for one not exist without the different thing does not exist.
and so it does not exist. difference and another other, and therefore, it exist. It follows that it
difference to actually does not exist. doesn't exist.
move overcoming
differences, and even in
the future such a
solution can never be
realized.
Where no difference ..Difference can never A difference is not Difference is not in a Otherness does not
occurs, the difference in be found in only one evident in relation to a different thing. Nor is it exist in the other. Nor
the different does not individual [thing], and different thing. Nor is it in a non-different thing. does it exist in what is
occur. And where difference can never be not evident in a If difference does not not other. If otherness
difference is not found in only one thing, different thing. When exist, Neither different does not exist, neither
present, neither identity which is not different. If difference is not nor identical things the other nor that itself
nor difference exist. there is no existence, or evident, there is neither exist. exists.
14.7
if it is [considered] in difference nor identity.
the abstract concept of
difference, both the
state that is different
from fusion and fusion
itself can never exist in
the real world at all.
The combination of Fusion does not rely The association of That does not connect That does not connect
identical events [of one upon fusion itself, nor identical things or of to itself. Nor do with that. The other too
14.8 to another] or different does fusion belong to different things is not different things connect does not connect with
events [of one differing fusion itself, and fusion proper. Neither the to one another. Neither the other. The

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 75


from another] is not does not rely upon what associating nor the connection nor connecting, the
found. The connecting, is not fusion itself, nor associated nor even die Connected nor connection and the
the connector, and the does fusion belong to agent of association is connector exist connector too do not
connected is not what is not fusion itself. evident. exist.
reasonable. The relation between
fusion and what is not
fusion is not a
combination, nor is it an
accumulation [of things]
into one place, nor can
the state in which fusion
and what is not fusion
are fighting against
each other be

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 76


Chapter 15

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Examination of Examination of Investigation of Essence and


15 Analysis of Self-Nature Examination of Essence
subjective Existence Self_Nature Essences (Essence) Existence
There is no arising of Total existence does not The occurrence of self- Essence arising from It is unreasonable for an It makes no sense to
self-nature connected belong to subjective nature through causes Causes and conditions essence to arise from say that essence
with causes and existence, and it is and conditions is not makes no sense. If causes and conditions. arises from causes
conditions. Self-nature regulated by reason as a proper. self-nature that essence carne from Whatever essence arose and conditions. If
from causes and reliable fact. ¥ Reason has occurred as a result causes and conditions, from causes and essence were
conditions would be and the reliable facts of causes and Then it would be conditions would be caused or
artificial. are always combined conditions would be fabricated. something that has conditioned, it
15.1
into one, and subjective something that is made. been made. would not be
existence can be essence.
understood as that
which is artificially
produced by human
beings.

Again, how will what is Because subjective Again, how could there How could it be How is it possible for Essence cannot be
called self-nature be existence is called that be a self-nature that is appropriate For there to be “an essence created or
artificial? Self-nature is which is produced by made? Indeed, an fabricated essence to which has been made?” otherwise come to
not made artificially human beings unmade self-nature is come to be? Essence Essences are not be. Essence is not
and, indeed, it is artificially, how is it also non-contingent itself is not artificial And contrived and not artificial, nor does it
independent of others. possible for subjective upon another. does not depend on dependent on anything depend on another.
existence to continue to another. else.
exist even in the future?
If subjective existence is
15.2 not what is produced by
human beings
artificially, such
subjective existence is
not the object of
interest to anyone, and
it might belong to some
world other than the
real world.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 77


.. In a being having self- If subjective existence In the absence of self- If there is no essence, If an essence does not If there are
nature, where will as thought does not nature, whence can How can there be exist, how can the essences, then there
other-nature be? The exist in the real world, there be other-nature? difference in entities? thingness of the other are real differences
self-nature of other- how is it possible for For, self-nature of other- The essence of exist? [For] the essence between things . . . .
nature is called other- objective existence as nature is called other- difference in 1entities Is of the thingness of the
nature. sensory excitement to nature. what is called the entity other is said to be the
exist in the real world of difference. thingness of the other.
even in the future?
Subjective existence as
15.3
thought belongs to
objective existence as
sensory excitement;
therefore it is possible
for objective existence
as sensory excitement
to become the object of
verbal discussion.

Again, where is the When subjective Without self-nature and Without having essence Apart from an essence Are there entities
being without self- existence as thought other-nature, whence or otherness-essence, and the thingness of the without essences?
nature or other- and objective existence can there be an How can there be other, what things are Then there are no
natures? Indeed, it as sense excitement are existent? For, the entities? If there are there? If essences and real differences
demonstrates that a fused into one, there is existent is established essences and entities thingnesses of others between them . . . .
being exists in self- no place where the only when there is self- Entities are established. existed, things would be
nature or in other- abstract concept of nature or other-nature. established.
nature. existence can exist at
all.[This is] because the
15.4
existence of the real
world is always realize
when subjective
existence as thought
and objective existence
as sen, excitement are
fused into one in the
real world.

The lack of explanation We can think that When the· existent is If the entity is not If things were not If we cannot find an
of being does not something unreal exists, not established, the established, A nonentity established, non-things entity with an
15.5 establish non-being. The but it is necessary for us non-existent is also not is not established. An would not be essence, that does
changing nature of ti think that what does established. It is, entity that has become established. [When] a not prove the non-
being is indeed called not exist can never be indeed, the change of different Is a nonentity, thing becomes existence of such

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 78


non-being by people. realized. if [This is] the existent that people people say. something else, people entities. Some say
because it is just a real generally call the non- say that it is a non-thing. that an entity that
fact that various kinds existent. · changes is a
of births in real world nonentity.
manifest various
existences and
nonexistences actually.

Those who see self- Even [in the case of] Those who perceive Those who see essence Those who view Those who think in
nature and other- subjective existence or self-nature as well as and essential difference essence, thingness of terms of essences
nature, being and non- objective existence, and other-nature, existence And entities and the other, things and and real differences,
being, do not see the even [in the case of] as well as non- nonentities, They do not non-things do not see and who cannot
truth in the Buddha’s existence or existence, they do not see The truth taught by the suchness in the recognize entities
teaching. nonexistence, People perceive the truth the Buddha. teaching of the without essences,
who sometimes observe embodied in the awakened. do not grasp the
15.6
them and sometimes do Buddha's message. truth taught by the
not observe them are Buddha.
people who are strongly
criticized by Gautama
Buddha because of such
a fact.

In the instructions to Katyayana was critical In the admonition to The Victorious One, Through knowing things The Buddha . . .
Katyayana, both “it is” to the two insistences Katyayana, the two through knowledge Of and non-things, the counseled against
and “it is not” were that something exists or theories I implying] reality and unreality, In Buddha negated both saying "it is" and "it
demonstrated by the that something does 'exists' and 'does not the Discourse to existence and non- is not."
Buddha as causing the not exist. Discussions of exist' have been, Katyayana, Refuted existence in his Advice
appearance of being something existing or refuted by· the Blessed both "it is" and "it is to Katyayana.
and non-being. not existing were One who is adept in not."
15.7 refused by the saint existence as well as in
[Katyayana], because non-existence.
such discussions about
existence or
nonexistence did not
have any special
brilliancy.

If existence would be When real existence in If existence were to be If existence were If [things] existed If only entities with
unalterable, there the real world exists in in terms of primal through essence, Then essentially, they would essences [really]
15.8 would not be its non- the original conditions, nature, then there there would be no not come to non- exist, then there is
existence. Indeed a then it is impossible for would not be its non- nonexistence. A change existence. It is never the no non-existence,

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 79


changing nature of any fact not to exist in existence. A change of in essence Could never case that an essence nor can anything
primordial substance this world at all [This is] primal nature is be tenable. could become change.
never happens. because it is completely certainly not something else.
impossible for some appropriate.
substitute, which has
been separated from its
original reality,
accidentally to appear
into this world.

Where primordial If everything keeps its When primal nature is If there is no essence, If essences did not exist, Some will say, "If
substance does not own original reality, it is non-existent, whose What could become what could become there are no
exist, what will have completely impos: sible change would there be? other? If there is something else? Even if essences, what is
changing nature? Where for what is not true to When primal nature is essence, What could essences existed, what there to change?"
primordial substance exist as a substitute for existent, whose change become other? could become We reply, "If there
exists, what will have what is not true. If would there be ? something else? are essences, what
15.9 changing nature? everything keeps its is there to change?"
own original reality, it is
completely impossible
for what is true to exist
as a substitute for what
is true.

“It is” is grasping for ..If we believe in the "Exists' implies grasping To say "it is" is to grasp “Existence” is the To say "it is" is to be
eternity. “It is not” is the idea of the constant after eternalism. "Does for permanence. To say grasping at attached to
view of nihilism. grasp, it is completely not exist" implies the "it is not" is to adopt the permanence; “non- essentialism. 2 To
Therefore, existence impossible for us to philosophy of view of nihilism. existence” is the view of say "it is not" is to
and non-existence believe that annihilation. Therefore, Therefore a wise person annihilation. Therefore, lapse into nihilism. 3
would not be resorted instantaneousness a discerning person Does not say "exists" or the wise do not dwell, in Therefore,
to by the wise. exists really. But in the should not rely upon "does not exist." existence or non- judgments of "it is"
real world, where either existence or non- existence. or "it is not" are not
something concrete and existence. made by the wise.
15.10
something abatract are
fused into one, the real
situations of the real
world are not individual
or sharp, but there is
only the simple fact that
something vague but
brilliant exists in front
of us.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 80


“Whatever exists by If the world as a "Whatever that exists in "Whatever exists “Since that which exists "An entity with an
self-nature, that does receptacle does not terms of self-nature, through its essence by its essence is not essence cannot not-
not not exist” and so is exist relying upon that is not non-existent'' Cannot be nonexistent" non-existent,” is [the exist." This is
permanent. Annihilation subjective existence, implies eternalism. "It is eternalism. "It view of] permanence. essentialism. "It
follows from “it does the idea that the world does not exist now, but existed before but “That which arose existed before, but
not exist now but as a receptacle does not existed before" implies doesn't now" Entails the before is now non- now it doesn't." This
existed before.” exist really is eternal. annihilation. error of nihilism existent,”leads to [the is nihilism.
15.11 When we have the idea view of] annihilation.
that there is nothing
really before anything
has been born, such an
idea might be too
influenced by the idea
of instantaneousness.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 81


Chapter 16

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the Investigation of
Analysis of Bondage and Examination of Bondage
16 Fusion of Restriction and Examination of Bondage Bondage and Freedom
Freedom and Release
Emancipation (Life)
If dispositions When forms of conduct If it is assumed that If compounded If it is said that impulses
transmigrate, they pass by, it is not the dispositions phenomena are “samsara”, if they
transmigrate as not situation that only what transmigrate, they transmigrate, They do were permanent, they
permanent and they is instinctive is passing would not transmigrate not transmigrate as would not move around.
transmigrate as not by. When what is not as permanent entities. permanent. If they are Even if impermanent,
16.1 impermanent. It is the only instinctive passes Neither do they impermanent they do they would not move
same process in a by, all things and transmigrate as not transmigrate. The around. Sentient beings
sentient being. phenomena in front of impermanent entities. same approach applies too are similar in this
us are just in the state of This method (of analysis) to sentient beings. respect.
movement. is applicable even in the
case of a sentient being.
If a person transmigrates When a person passes It may be assumed that a If someone If it is said that persons
five-fold in the elements,through his daily life, the person transmigrates. transmigrates, Then if, “move around,” if they
sense spheres, and five aggregates are Yet, such a person, when sought in the five- are non-existent when
personality skeins usually based on physical sought for in the five- fold way In the searched for in five
pursuing what does not matter. But when the fold way in the aggregates and in the aspects among the
exist, who will five aggregates are real, aggregates, spheres (of sense spheres and in the aggregates, sense fields
transmigrate? which is a kind of sense) and elements, elements, He is not and elements, what
16.2
research, it is impossible does not exist. Who then there, what would move around?
for us to find real will transmigrate? transmigrates?
wandering within our
daily lives o for such
wandering to really exist
even in the future.

Migrating from grasping When sense perception Moving from one form If one transmigrates If one moves around in
to grasping would be has transcended sense of grasping to another, from grasping to having clung [to
annihilation. Who is perception itself, where there would be other grasping, then One something] and then
16.3 destroyed and [thus] not is the possibility for us to becoming. Who is this would be nonexistent. clinging [to something
grasping? Who is he who produce wandering in person who has ceased Neither existent nor else], there would be no
will transmigrate? our daily life everywhere to be and is [therefore] grasping, Who could this becoming. If there were
even in the future? If our non-grasping? Wherein transmigrator be? no clinging and no

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 82


sense perceptions are does he transmigrate? becoming, who would
regulated everywhere, move around?
how is it possible for our
wandering to be realized
at any place even in the
future?

How does the liberation When the balanced state The cessation of How could compounded It is in no way feasible
from dispositions even does not manifest itself dispositions is somehow phenomena pass into that impulses go beyond
happen? How does the in the performance of not appropriate. The nirvana ? That would not misery. And it is in no
liberation of a sentient real action, nothing cessation even of a be tenable. How could a way feasible that living
16.4 being also happen? occurs at all. When the sentient being is also not sentient being pass int o beings go beyond
balanced state cannot appropriate in any way. nirvana? That would not misery.
be seen in the real state, be tenable.
nothing occurs at all.

Rising and ceasing The universal system, Dispositions that are of All compounded Impulses that have the
events are neither which is always the nature of uprising phenomena, as arising properties of being born
bound nor free. continuing its and ceasing are neither and ceasing things, Are and dying are not bound
Dispositions are neither appearances and bound nor released. A not bound and not and will not be freed. In
bound by nor released disappearances, is never sentient being, like the released. For this reason the same way as above
by the previously restricted, yet it is never foregoing, is neither a sentient being Is not living beings too are not
16.5
mentioned sentient emancipated. Real bound n or released. bound, not released. bound and will not be
being. action in reality, and freed.
reality itself, is never
restricted and never
emancipated.

If grasping is bondage, Even if restriction has If grasping were to be If grasping were If clinging binds, the one
he [who is grasping] is manifested, such a considered a bondage, bondage, Then the one who has clinging would
not bound by grasping manifestation is not one who is with grasping who is grasping would not be bound. And there
nor is he bound by not restricted at all. And is not being bound. not be bound. But one would be no bondage
grasping. But who what has not manifested Neither is one without who is not grasping is without clinging. In what
16.6
remains bound by is not restricted; then grasping being bound. A not bound. In what situation would there be
grasping? how is it possible for per-son in which state is circumstances will one bondage?
what has appeared to be then bound? be bound?
restricted at all?

.. If bondage would be When real facts have If it is assumed that 7. If prior to binding If binding existed prior
16.7 prior to what is bound, existed before becoming bondage exists prior to There is a bound one, to one who is bound,
freely it would bind what restricted, then we can the binding of that There would be [that unbound person]

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 83


does not exist. The rest easily leave the which is to be bound, bondage, but there isn would depend on
is discussed by going, restricted situation and that does not exist. The 't. The rest has been binding. That too cannot
gone, and not gone. truly enter into perfect rest has been explained explained by the gone, be. The rest has been
freedom. And the fact by [the analysis of] the not-gone, and the explained by the gone,
that there is no present moving, the goer. the not-gone and the
possibility other than moved and the not going.
what is proclaimed moved.
above can be explained
by referring to the fact
that the verbal
expressions having gone,
going on, and not yet
gone are completely
different dimensionally
from the real act of
going just at the present
moment.

Therefore, the bound is What is restricted is not One who is bound is not Whoever is bound is not Those who are bound
not freed by the emancipated, as much as released, nor is one who released. Whoever is not will not be free. And
unbound, nor is the what is not restricted is not bound freed. bound does not get those who are not
unbound freed by the can never be When there is releasing released. If a bound one bound will not be free. If
bound. In presently emancipated at all. Aha, of one who is bound, were being released, those who are bound
freeing the bound, it may be true that when then. there would be Bondage and release become free, bondage
16.8 bondage and freedom a man exists both in simultaneous occurrence would occur and freedom would be
would be simultaneous. restriction and of bondage and release. simultaneously. simultaneous.
emancipation, he might
exist in the fusion
between restriction and
emancipation.

(For} those who say, When the attitude of not "Non-grasping, l shall be "I, without grasping, will “I, without clinging, am
“Nirvana will be mine,” relying upon sense free. Freedom will then pass beyond sorrow, And beyond misery. Nirvana
their grasping of the perception has become be mine." For I will attain nirvana," one is mine.” Those who
non-grasping of freedom sufficient to me, it may whomsoever there is says. Whoever grasps grasp in that way have
is a gigantic grasping. also be possible that the grasping in this manner, like this Has a great great grasping and
16.9 balanced attitude may that will be a gigantic grasping. clinging.
become sufficient to me. grasping.
A grasp of things and
phenomena is just the
real fact, and what is

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 84


grasped by sense
perception is just the
great world, which
manifests as the great
image itself.

Neither is nirvana only Nirvana is not a place to Wherein there is neither When you can't bring When nirvana is not
samsara nor is samsara wish to enter, and our the attribution of about nirvana, Nor the born and samsara not
removed away. Where wandering through daily freedom nor the purification of cyclic eliminated, then what is
there is nirvana, there is life is not a place to wish elimination of the life- existence, What is cyclic samsara? And what is
samsara. Which is falsely to depart. The place process, what is it that is existence, And what is considered as nirvana?
discriminated from where something that being discriminated as the nirvana you
which? can never be expressed life-process or as examine?
16.10 with words exists is just freedom?
the place of our daily
life, so how is it possible
for us to exchange our
daily life for the
balanced state of
Nirvana?

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 85


Chapter 17

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of the
Analysis of Action and Examination of the Fruit Examination of Actions Investigation of Actions
17 Fusion of Action and
Effect of Action and their Fruits and Fruits(Acts)
Result
Thinking [i.e., willing] It is a type of mental Self restraint as well as Self-restraint and Restraining oneself well
self-restraint, kindness function to restrain benefiting others this is benefiting others With a and loving thoughts
toward others, and ourselves by relying the friendly way and it compassionate mind is that benefit others are
friendliness is the upon the spiritual constitutes the seed the Dharma. This is the the Dharma which is the
teaching. It is that seed viewpoint, and it is also that bears fruit here as seed for Fruits in this seed of fruits here and
of the fruit now and a type of mental well as in the next life. and future lives. elsewhere.
after death. function to give
benevolence to others.
Kindness, which was
17.1
given by others, is just
the system of the
universe, and ideas,
which are born from
thought, sometimes
belong to the future
and sometimes belong
to the present.

The Great Sage said The fact that things and The Supreme Ascetic The Unsurpassed Sage The great sage has
karman is volition and phenomena can be seen has said that action is has said That actions are taught all actions to be
will in action. Actions of well is related with the volition. as well as either intention or intention and what is
many distinct kinds have mental function, but it volitional. Many distinct intentional. The intended. The specifics
been expounded. is necessary for us to varieties of that action varieties of these of those actions are well
have patient endurance have also been actions Ha".e been known to be of many
when speaking about expounded. announced in many kinds.
17.2
real action. When we ways.
talk about action, it is
not simple or arbitrary,
but when we talk about
action, there is a
common tendency to
proclaim conclusions as

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 86


if they were decisive.
Karman, which is here In those situations, Herein, what is called Of these, what is called In this respect action
called “volition,” is problems related with volition is reminisced as "intention" Is mental spoken of as “intention”
mindfulness of what is mind are the objects of mental action. desire. What is called is regarded as being
present in the mind. discussion, and the Whatever is called "intentional" Comprises that of mind. That
Further, that called will abstract concept of volitional consists of the the physical and verbal. spoken of as “what is
in action, that is bodily action is just a memory bodily and verbal. intended” is regarded as
and verbal. in the mind. Even being that of body and
though problems speech.
related with mind are
very good themes for
17.3 discussion, and
problems related with
mind are inevitably
related with physical
factors, [if we limit the
dialogue to the area of
verbal discussions] our
discussion might be also
limited to the mental
world.

Uninterrupted words When talk continues Whatever words and Speech and action and Whatever (1) speech
and deeds, which are endlessly, it seems to be deeds that are assisted all Kinds of and (2) movements and
false ideas that do not that only useless talk with delight and unabandoned and (3) “unconscious not-
inform, are called and useless information designated as non- abandoned actions, And letting-go,” (4) other
opposite to cessations continues without intimation, and those resolve As well as … kinds of unconscious
17.4 by means of ceasing. It is strange others reminisced as letting-go are also
mindfulness. that information is not non-intimation, but are regarded like that.
conveyed, and in such a associated with non-
state even memory may delight.
be stopped completely.

Enjoyment and energy, The pursuit of Similarly, merit as well Virtuous and (5) Goodness that arises
merit and demerit, enjoyment, whether it is as demerit consequent nonvirtuous actions from enjoyment/use
thought and memories, pure or not, is limited upon enjoyment, and Derived from pleasure, and in the same manner
and volition, according only to the inside of the finally, volition these As well as intention and (6) what is not
17.5 to the precepts, are the pursuit of enjoyment. are reminisced as the morality: These seven goodness,[and] (7)
seven events that give What we can grasp as seven things that are are the kinds of action. intention. These seven
rise to Karman. objective criteria are the productive of action. dharmas are clearly
seven kinds of balanced regarded as action.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 87


criteria and they make
our action beautiful, but
they are also memories
of our action in the past.

If karman endures Departing from the If it is assumed that If until the time of If the action remained
throughout the time of immature idea of time, action remains during ripening Action bad to until the time of
maturation, it would go real action at the the time it is maturing, remain in place, it would ripening, it would
on in perpetuity. If it has present moment has then it will approach have to be permanent. become permanent. If it
ceased, then having been established permanence. If it is If it has ceased, then stopped, by having
ceased, what existing already, and action assumed to have having ceased, How will stopped, how could a
fruit will arise? itself promotes action ceased, then having a fruit arise? fruit be born?
independently as ceased, how can it
various things and produce a fruit?
17.6 phenomena, and these
expand in scale. When
something unclear goes
on as something
unclear, it is utterly
impossible for such a
vague situation to
produce a result even in
the future.

A continuity advances After new sprouts have Whatever series that As for a continuum, such The continuum of
by a sprout which is departed from seeds, begins with a sprout as the sprout, It comes sprouts and so on
brought forward from a continuity goes ahead. proceeds from a seed, from a seed. From that clearly emerges from
seed. And therefore, Even though a result as and then produces a arises the fruit. Without seeds, and from that
the fruit does not come development begins to fruit. However, without a seed, It would not fruits. If there were no
17.7 forward without a seed. go ahead, it is a seed, such [a series] come into being. seeds, they too would
completely impossible would not proceed. not emerge.
for a result itself to
develop further
automatically.

Since from the seed Departing from the Since a series arises Since from the seed Because continuums are
there is continuity and stage of seeds, from a seed and a fruit comes the continuum, from seeds and fruits
from continuity, the continuity goes on, and arises from a series, a and from the continuum emerge from
17.8 origin of the fruit, the relying upon continuity, fruit that is preceded by comes the fruit, The continuums and seeds
seed is prior to the fruit. there is a result, which a seed is, therefore, seed precedes the fruit. precede fruits,
Therefore there is has been gotten by neither interrupted nor Therefore there is therefore, there is no

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 88


neither disruption nor continuity. Although eternal. neither nonexistence annihilation and no
permanence. there is a result before nor permanence. permanence.
the seeds appear again,
the result is never just
an instantaneous fact,
nor is it an eternal fact.

Therefore, that Therefore a result is a Therefore, whatever So, in a mental The continuum of mind
continuity of thought continuity of thought series there is, continuum, From a clearly emerges from
advances by thinking. consciousness, and a that proceeds from a preceding intention A mind, and from that
And thus thought [the result goes on relying thought and from that consequent mental fruits. If there were no
fruit] does not come upon the function of fruit. That thought state arises. Without mind, they too would
forward without consideration. The series would not this, it would not arise. not emerge.
17.9 thinking. expansion of mental proceed without a
function is working as a thought.
result arising from
consciousness, and it is
not true that a result
itself goes on really.

Since from thinking Therefore, departing Since a continuous Since from the intention Because continuums are
there is continuity and from mental function, it series arises from comes the continuum, from minds and fruits
from continuity, the is possible for continuity thought and from the And from the emerge from
origin of the thought, to exist, and the state continuous series the continuum the fruit continuums and actions
thought is prior to that has left continuity uprising of a fruit, the arises, Action precedes precede fruits,
thinking. Therefore, is called a result. A fruit that is preceded by the fruit. Therefore therefore, there is no
17.10
there is neither result exists as action is neither there is neither annihilation and no
disruption nor consciousness before an interrupted nor eternal. nonexistence nor permanence.
permanence. act is really done, and a permanence.
result is neither abrupt
nor eternal.

The ten pure action The attitude of going The ten pure paths of The ten pure paths of The ten paths of white
paths are the means ahead directly toward action are the means of action Are the method action are the means of
leading straight to the an aim is suitable to the achieving good. The of realizing the Dharma. practising Dharma. Here
goal of the teaching. system of the universe, five· strands of sense These fruits of the and elsewhere, the
17.11 The five objects of the and such pure behavior pleasure represent the Dharma in this and fruits of Dharma are the
senses [bear] fruit, is just [the same as] the fruit of good, here as other lives Are the five five kinds of sensual
according to the ten kinds of pure morals well as in the next life. pleasures. qualities.
teaching, both now and in Buddhism. In that
after death. case, the results are

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 89


objects that are
desirable aims for true
people to develop
further, and the results
are our hope for the
universe in the future,
and at the same time
they are just the
contents of our minds at
the present moment.

Many and great errors Increasing favor, If there were to be such If such an analysis were If it were as that
would be assumed to be greatness, and even a thought, there would advanced, There would investigation, many
true if, by means of vices, when they are be many a great error. be many great errors. great mistakes would
imagining, these combined with fantastic Therefore, such a Therefore, this analysis occur. Therefore, that
{actions} take place here fictions .Things and thought is not Is not tenable here. investigation is not valid
and not those [results]. phenomena may appropriate here. here.
become completely
different from real
17.12
things and phenomena
[relying upon those
fantastic fictions], and
even those things and
phenomena might be
the appearance of
fantastic fictions.

Again, I will explain Now again I would like Moreover, I shall I will then explain what I will fully declare the
where this assumption to emphasize that expound the following is tenable here: The investigation which is
is employed by fantastic fiction is prone thought which is analysis propounded by taught by the Buddhas,
awakened ones, by self- to combine itself with appropriate and which all Buddhas, self- Pratyekabuddhas and
awakened ones, and by fantastic fiction. Such has been extolled by conquerors And Sravakas, which is valid
17.13
disciples who praised it. facts have been the Buddhas, the self- disciples according to here.
explained by Buddhas, enlightened ones and which …
pratyekabuddhas, and the disciples.
iravakas.

What is imperishable is At the place where an Like an imperishable Action is like an Just like a contract,
like a promissory note endless motion of wings promissory note, so is uncancelled promissory irrevocable action is like
17.14 and an action like a exists there is the debt as well as action. It note And like a debt. Of a debt. In terms of
debt. It [what is continuity of the fact of is fourfold in terms of the realms it is fourfold. realms, there are four

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 90


imperishable] has four flying, and this fact is realms and Moreover, its nature is types. Moreover, its
kinds of elements and it just the reality of action. indeterminate in terms neutral. nature is unspecified.
is indeterminable in The four physical of primal nature.
primordial substance. elements [earth, water,
fire, and air] belong to
reality, but although
they are real entities,
they are just as they are.

[The imperishable is] When someone stops That [i.e., the By abandoning, that is It is not let go of by
not abandoned by the working completely, imperishable karma] not abandoned. letting go, but only let
act of abandonment or this is never the same as would not be Abandonment occurs go of by cultivation.
by unabandoned someone stopping a relinquished by simple through meditation. Therefore through
meditation. Therefore, task for a while, but relinquishing. It is to be Therefore, through the irrevocability are the
by means of the these two kinds of relinquished only non-expired, The fruit fruits of acts produced.
imperishable, the fruit is stopping are common through cultivation. of action arises.
born out of the action. and these two cases of Thus, through the
17.15 stopping do not imperishable arises the
discontinue their fruit of action.
existence. Therefore,
the results of action are
always born from the
simple fact that time
always goes on without
stopping.

If abandoned by the act ..Even if the stopping of If it is to be relinquished If abandonment If it perished through
of abandonment or by a task forever and the through simple occurred through being let go of by
means of the stopping of a task for a relinquishing or through abandoning, and If letting go and the
transformation of what while were the same the transformation of action we re destroyed transcendence of the
would be karman, then things and were based action, then there through transformation, action, then faults
errors follow, such as on action, these exist would follow a variety The destruction of would follow such as
the denial of karman, only related with the of errors such as the action, etc., And other the perishing of actions.
17.16
etc. fact of what is actually destruction of actions. errors would arise.
done. When various
vices spread through
the world, even acts of
destruction would tend
to become too harsh.

17.17 When all similar and All pursuits belong to Of all these actions, From all these actions in The very [irrevocability]

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 91


dissimilar karmans have many kinds of divisions, whether dissimilar or a realm, Whether of all actions in similar
been put together again and such pursuits exist similar, belonging to similar or dissimilar, At or dissimilar realms,
with the elements, only in mutual relation; at certain realms, only one the moment of birth that one alone is born
one arises. the same time they are would arise at the Only one will arise. when crossing the
absolutely related with moment of birth [of a boundary [i.e. reborn].
real action itself. Among being) .
miscellaneous material
factors, which have the
tendency to change,
only one factor
manifests itself, that is,
just reality.

The view’s teaching is it A fact that is related That [imperishable] In this visible world, All In the visible world
[the imperishable] with action manifests arises in the present actions of the two kinds, there are two kinds.
arises from the action of itself as a fact related life, corresponding to all Each comprising action Actions of all [types]
the two karmans with action [in front of the actions having dual and the unexpired and that [irrevocability]
[similar and dissimilar]. us], and the universe natures [similar and separately, Will remain of actions are produced
And it endures in the itself manifests itself dissimilar, good and while ripening. as different things and
maturation of just as reality. The two bad, etc.] and stays so remain [so?] even on
everything from the existences [the universe even when matured. ripening.
two scattered heaps. itself and facts that are
17.18
the fusion of action] are
just established as
fundamental existence,
and they are established
as everything that has
already been
established just as a
mature form.

It [the imperishable] A result manifests itself That [imperishable] That fruit, if extinction When the fruit is
ceases either from in the form of being ceases as result of the or death Occurs, ceases. transcendent and when
escaping the effect or independent from interruption of the fruit Regarding this, a one dies, that ceases.
from death. A passing time, and, being or as result of death. distinction between the One should know its
distinction between independent from real Herein, a distinction stainless And the divisions to be without-
17.19
passion and purity death, the result between one with stained is drawn. corruption and with-
[outflows and the manifests itself in an influxes and the one corruption.
drying up of outflows] isolated form. In such a without influxes is to be
would be drawn. case, both what is signified.
painful and what is not

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 92


painful can be
recognized as images of
results.

Openness is not The balanced state is Emptiness, however, is Emptiness and non- Emptiness is not
disruption, and samsara never interrupted or not annihilation; life- annihilation; Cyclic annihilation and
is not permanence. The instantaneous, and even process is also not existence and non- samsara is not
imperishability [i.e., wanderings in our daily eternal; the permanence: that action permanent. The dharma
continuing through lives do not continue imperishability is of is non-expiring Is taught of the irrevocability of
their fruits] of the two forever. The theory that action such is the by the Buddha. actions is taught by the
actions is the teaching what is related with doctrine taught by the Buddha.
17.20
elucidated by the action always has Buddha.
Buddha. characteristics of
eternity and is also the
rule of the universe
itself has been preached
by Gautama Buddha.

Why does karman not When a real act has not Why does action not Because action does not Because actions are not
arise? Because it is yet appeared, how is it arise? Because it is arise, It is seen to be born, in this way they
without self-nature. possible for the denial without self-nature. without essence. have no nature.
Since it does not arise, of subjective Since it is non-arisen, it Because it is not arisen, Therefore, because they
therefore it does not consideration to occur? does not perish. It follows that it is non- are not born, therefore
perish. Because no concrete expiring. they are irrevocable.
things or phenomena
17.21
have appeared at all,
there is no situation in
which things and
phenomena can conceal
their forms at all, even
in the future.

If Karman had self- If an act is only If it is assumed that If action had an essence, If actions existed [by]
nature, it would subjective existence, action comes to be from It would, without doubt, nature, without doubt
certainly be permanent. such an abstract action self-nature, it certainly be eternal. Action would they would be
Karman that would be might seem sometimes will be eternal, and be uncreated. Because permanent. Actions
17.22 uncaused is indeed not to be absolutely eternal action would also be there can be no creation would not be done [by
caused by permanence. and might seem uncaused, for that of what is eternal. an agent] because what
sometimes to be an which is eternal is, is permanent cannot be
unstable situation indeed, not caused. done.
without rest. [This is]

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 93


because if real action in
the real world is not
done actually, it may be
impossible for any kind
of eternity to be
produced at all.

If karman would be When [there is] fear of If an action were not If an action were If actions were not done
uncaused, there is fear the difficulty of arriving performed [by the uncreated, Fear would [by anyone], one would
of encountering [what at the real fact of individual], then there arise of encountering fear meeting what [one]
one did] not cause. In something being done, would be fear of being something not done. has not done. Also the
that case, an unsaintly the real situation might confronted by And the error of not fault would follow for
life and error would suggest that the act has something not preserving One's vows that [person] of not
follow. not actually been done performed [by him]. An would arise. dwelling in the pure life.
at all in the real world. ignoble life as well as
In such a situation we error would follow from
17.23
can say that it may be a this.
real fact that the state
of continuing the
practice is not
sufficient, and even
extreme vices pervade
throughout the world
actually.

Undoubtedly all Even when practice is Undoubtedly, all All conventions would All conventions also
practices would be hindered, it is never conventions would then then Be contradicted, without doubt would be
hindered. The true that everything be contradicted. The without doubt. It would contradictory. Also the
difference between rests. In real situations, distinction between the be impossible to draw a distinction between
causing merit or evil in which a true act and performance of merit distinction Between doing good and evil
17.24 does not occur. an untrue act have been and evil will also not be virtue and evil. would not be valid.
mixed, it is completely proper.
impossible to
distinguish a true act
and an untrue act.

If Karman is unchanging An act that is matured If action were to be Whatever is mature [When] the ripening of
because it arises from may mature further, and determined, because it would mature Time and that [action] has ripened
17.25 its own nature, then it will mature further in possesses self-nature, time again. If there it would ripen again and
maturity that has the future. When an act then a maturity that has were essence, this again, because if it
matured will therefore has been established as matured will again would follow, Because existed [by] nature, it

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 94


mature again. a true condition, mature. action would remain in would [always] remain.
following just the true place.
conditions, the true
original factors actually
manifest themselves.

If karman has Action itself and daily If this action is While this action has This action has the
defilements as self, the painful conditions have associated with affliction as its nature character of affliction
defilements are not just accomplished the defilements, these This affliction is not real and afflictions are not
real. If they are not real real world, and those defilements, in tum, are in itself. If affliction is real. If affliction is not
defilements, how would things and phenomena not found in not in itself, How can real, how can action be
karman be real? are just the painful themselves. If action be real in itself? real?
condition itself, but defilements are not in
17.26 such painful conditions themselves, how could
are just reality. If those there be an action in
things and phenomena itself?
are neither reality nor
hard pains, it might
become impossible for
us to recognize reality.

Actions and defilements Action and severe pain Action and defilements Action and affliction Are Actions and afflictions
are mentioned as are both related with are specified as the taught to be the are taught to be the
conditioning causes of the physical problem, conditions of the conditions that produce conditions for bodies. If
the body. How are and the reliable facts [different] bodies. bodies. If action and actions and afflictions
actions and defilements are verbal expressions However, if these affliction Are empty, are empty, how can one
open if they are that alone. When action and actions and defilements what would one say speak of bodies?
17.27 [open] in bodies? severe pain are both in are empty, what could about bodies?
the balanced state, it is be said about the
impossible to know bodies?.
what is included into
various physical things
and in what situations.

A sentient being When someone who A sentient being, Obstructed by People who are
unturned from cannot stop ignorance beclouded by ignorance, ignorance, And obscured by ignorance,
ignorance is bound by manifests his usual is also fettered by consumed by passion, those with craving, are
17.28 craving. He is the personality, the fact craving. As an the experiencer Is the consumers [of the
experiencer and he is that he is just restricted experiencer, he is neither different from fruits of action]. They
not the same and he is by desire is reality itself. neither identical_with the agent Nor identical are not other than
not different from the A person who is so nor different from the with it. those who do the action

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 95


agent. pleasure-seeking can agent. . and they are also not
never be a person who those very ones.
produces something
useful, but at the same
time it is impossible for
him to select any other
way, and such a fact
without selection is just
called reality.

Because this action It is not true that the Since this action does Since this action Is not Because the action does
does not exist arisen reliable facts manifest not exist as arisen from arisen from a condition, not emerge from
from conditions or not totally in front of us, a condition nor as Nor arisen causelessly, conditions and does not
exist arisen from and it is not true that issuing forth from a It follows that there is emerge from non-
conditions, therefore something different non-condition, even an no agent. conditions, therefore,
the agent does not even from the reliable facts agent does not exist. the agent too does not
exist. manifests totally in exist.
17.29
front of us. The world
really exists just as
action itself, and
therefore it is never
true that a person who
acts really exists at all.

If action and agent do Because action does not If both action and agent If there is no action and If neither the action nor
not exist, where would exist really in the real are non-existent, where agent, Where co u Id the the agent exists, where
there be fruit born of world as a person who could there be the fruit fruit of action be? can there be a fruit of
action? Where there is acts, the supposition born of action? When Without a fruit, Where the action? If the fruit
no fruit, where will the that what is born from there is no fruit, where is there an experiencer? does not exist, where
experiencer be? action may be a result, can there be an can the consumer exist?
may not be anywhere at experiencer?
all. Although a pleasure-
17.30 seeking person expects
that there may be
something real in the
interpretation [that
there exists something
that can be called a]
result, such a result as a
real existence can never
exist anywhere at all,

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 96


even in the future.

As a teacher has within The fact that something Just as a teacher, Just as the teacher, by Just as a teacher
him the power to has already been through psychokinetic magic, Makes a magical creates a creation by a
magically create a actually accomplished is power, were. to create a illusion, and By that wealth of magical
magical illusion and that absolute authority, and figure, and this created illusion Another illusion powers, and just as if
magical illusion the fact that something figure were to create is created, that creation too
magically creates has already been another, t~t in turn created, again another
another magical illusion, accomplished makes the would be a created would be created,
value of the
accomplishment much
higher than an abstract
[idea of] perfection. The
17.31 fact that something is
being constructed is
much different from the
fact that something has
already been
accomplished, and the
fact that something is
being constructed
suggests that the
construction has not yet
been accomplished.

in the same way, an In this manner, the In the same way, an In that way are an agent Like this, whatever
agent is a magical formal image of agent is like a created and his action: The action too done by that
creator and his action a something that is going form and his action is agent is like the illusion. agent [is ]also like the
magical illusion. It is as a to be produced is just like his creation. It is like The action Is like the aspect of a creation. It is
magical illusion the fact that someone is the created form illusion's illusion. just like, for example, a
magically created by a producing something, created by another who creation creating
magical illusion. and that is just a real act is created. another creation.
of producing something
17.32 itself, and so it also
suggests the contents
of what is going to be
produced now.
Therefore a real act,
which is producing
something actually, is
different from the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 97


contents that have been
produced already, and
the situation in which
something is going to
be produced is never
different from the
situation that
something is going to
be produced, now.

Defilements, actions, Various severe pains, Defilements, .actions Afflictions, actions, Afflictions, actions and
bodies, doers, and various acts, bodies, and bodies, agents as bodies, Agents and bodies and agents and
effects are like dreams performing action, and well as fruits, all these fruits are Like a city of fruits are like a city of
and mirages, made up results too [when are similar to the cities Gandharvas and Like a gandharvas, a mirage, a
imaginary cities in the compared with real of the gandharvas, are mirage or a dream. dream.
sky. action itself], they are comparable to mirages
17.33 all similar to a mirage, and dreams.
sleep, or Gandharva, the
city without a jail, and
they are never real
existences in the real
world at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 98


Chapter 18

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Examination of Self and Investigation of Self


18 Analysis of the Self Examination of the Soul Examination of Self Self and Reality
Entities and Things (Self)
If the self would be the If the soul really exists If the self were to be If the self were the If the aggregates were If the self were the
skandhas, it would rise like the five aggregates, identical with the aggregates, It would self, it would be empirical personality
and pass away. If it which are real entities in aggregates, it will have arising and ceasing possessed of arising and [ego], then it would
would be different from the world, it may be partake of uprising and (as properties). If it decaying. If it were arise and dissolve. If
the skandhas, it would possible for the soul too ceasing. If it were to be were different from the other than the it were different
not have the to have its appearance, different from the aggregates, It would not aggregates, it would not from the empirical
characteristics of the disappearance, and aggregates, it would have the characteristics have the characteristics personality, then it
skandhas. maintenance. If there is have the characteristics of the aggregates. of the aggregates. would neither arise
any kind of real entity of the· non-aggregates. nor dissolve.
18.1 that is different from
the five aggregates, it
may be inevitable to
find some real entity
that has suitable
characteristics to that
real entity, [and] that is
different from the five
aggregates.

If the self does not How is it possible for a In the absence of a self, If there were no self, If the self did not exist, No self: no
exist, what will be one’s fantastic fact [such as how can there be Where would the self's where could what is properties of self. No
own? There is no “I,” no that of] a real person something that belongs (properties) be? From mine exist? In order to self: no "I" or "mine."
“mine” from the calming living relying upon a to the self? From the the pacification of the pacify self and what is
of what pertains to both soul ever to exist in appeasement of the salf and what belongs mine, grasping I and
senses of self. reality? The fact that modes of self and self- to it, One abstains from grasping mine can exist
one denies oneself hood, one abstains from grasping onto "!" and no more.
18.2
suggests that that creating the notions of "mine."
person concretely "mine" and "I."
sacrifices himself [or
herself], and in such a
situation the stable
condition of mind is
lost, and the situation

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 99


seems to be that a soul
and a soul have met and
then have lost
themselves together.

He who has no “I” and To deny oneself means Whosoever is free from One who does not grasp The one who does not No "I" or "mine," no
no “mine” does not to sacrifice oneself selfishness and egoism, onto ''I'' and "mine," grasp at me and mine separate existence.
occur. Who sees no “I” concretely, and he too is not evident. that one does not exist. likewise does not exist. No "I" or "mine," no
and no “mine” does not although such a Whoever perceives One who does not grasp Whoever sees the one belief in essential
see. situation is just real, someone as free _from onto "!"and "mine," He who does not grasp at differences.
such a situation usually selfishness and egoism, does not perceive. me and mine does not
is not recognized. The he too does not see.
attitude of denying perceive.
18.3
ourselves produces the
real fact of sacrificing
ourselves, but the fact
of really sacrificing
ourselves sometimes
can be seen and
sometimes cannot be
seen.
Where “I” and “mine” The word “my” and the When views pertaining When views of ''I" and When one ceases No "I" or "mine,"
are internally and word “I” have been used to "mine" and "I", ''mine" are thinking of inner and neither internally nor
externally destroyed, for many years, but the whether they are extinguished, Whether outer things as self and externally — clinging
grasping has ceased. words are looking at associated with the with respect to the mine, clinging will come ceases. No clinging,
From that destruction ourselves from the internal or the external, internal or external, The to a stop. Through that no rebirth.
birth is destroyed. outside. The self- have waned; then appropriator ceases. ceasing, birth will cease.
regulated state and the grasping comes to This having ceased,
real phenomenon are cease. With the wailing birth ceases.
just one entity, but of that [grasping], there
18.4
[when “my” or “I” is is waning of birth.
used], the real situation
has left the dominant
viewpoint of real
phenomena, and the
creative mental
function becomes
dominant.

Because of the The perfectly free state, On the waning of Action and misery Through the ceasing of When clinging and
18.5 destruction of action which has overcome the defilements of action, having ceased, there is action and affliction, misery cease, there is

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 100
and defilement, there is painfulness of practice, there is release. nirvana. Action and there is freedom. Action Nirvana. Clinging and
liberation. There are and the various Defilements of action misery come from and affliction [come] misery arise from
actions and defilements concrete pains being to one who conceptual thought. from thoughts and they false consciousness,
for one having false themselves are always discriminates, and these This comes from mental from fixations. Fixations from delusion.
notions. They must be changing their positions in turn result from fabrication. Fabrication are stopped by Delusion ceases
constructed from false reciprocally. Those obsession. Obsession, in ceases through emptiness. when emptiness
imagining and stopped situations are just the its turn, ceases within emptiness. (shunyata) is realized.
by openness. visible real world, which the context of
has already overcome emptiness.
the visible world, and
the world that exists in
the balanced state is
just regulating itself.

The term “atman” What is called the soul The Buddha's have 6. That there is a self It is said that “there is a Some teach self
pointed out causes it to has a character that make known the has been taught, And self,” but “non-self” too (atman). Some teach
be distinct from the should be grasped conception of self and the doctrine of no-self, is taught. The buddhas no-self (anatman).
term “anatman.” intuitively, so it is better taught the doctrine of By the buddhas, as well also teach there is The buddhas teach
Neither a self nor a non- if we are negative no-self. At the same as the Doctrine of nothing which is neither self nor no-
self are pointed out by toward the existence of time, they have not neither self nor nonself. “neither self nor non- self.
the buddhas. the soul. By many spoken of something as self.”
Buddhas, who have the self or as the non-
grasped the truth, the self.
18.6 soul sometimes has
been denied, and what
is not soul has been
denied strongly, but it
seems that those
insistences are much
more persuasive [than
the simple affirmation
of the soul].

Where the range of The abstract world has When the sphere of What language That to which language What language
thought is renounced, been described only by though has ceased, that expresses is refers is denied, describes is non-
that which can be stated verbal expression, and which is to be nonexistent. The sphere because an object existent. What
has ceased to be valid. such an abstract world designated also has of thought is experienced by the thought describes is
18.7 Indeed, the nature of has characteristics that ceased. Like freedom, nonexistent. Unarisen mind is denied. The non-existent. Things
events is like liberation, are prone to be useful the nature of things is and unceased, like unborn and unceasing neither arise nor
non-arising and non- to soothe the human non-arisen and non- nirvana Is the nature of nature of reality is dissolve, just as in
ceasing. . mind. The world, which ceased . . things. comparable to nirvana. Nirvana.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 101
has not manifested
itself in an image, is just
the world, which has not
been disturbed at all,
therefore the balanced
condition is just the
system of the universe,
and that is just the
world.
Everything is factual, Is it true that all things Everything is such, not Everything is real and is Everything is real, not The world is real. The
non-factual, both and phenomena do not such, both such and not not real, Both real and real; both real and not world is not real. The
factual and non-factual, really exist, or is if true such, and neither such not real, Neither real real; neither not real nor world is both real
neither factual nor non- that what really exists and not such: this is the nor not real. This is Lord real: this is the teaching and not real. The
factual. This is the actually exists, or that Buddha's admonition. Buddha's teaching. of the Buddha. world is neither real
instruction of the what does not really nor not real. None of
Buddha. exist does not really these is true,
18.8
exist at all? The opinions according to the
that the world does not teaching of the
exist at all or that the Buddha.
world really exists are
strongly prohibited by
Gautama Buddha.

Unconditioned by The reliable facts, which Independently realized, Not dependent on Not known through Not dependent.
another, peaceful, not are rieither peaceful, unobsessed by another, peaceful and others, peaceful, not Quiescent. Not a
constructed by means extraordinary nor obsessions, without Not fabricated by fixed by fixations, product of false
of false imaginings, free unfavorable, manifest discriminations and a mental fabrication, Not without conceptual consciousness. Not a
from false their balanced and variety of meanings: thought, without thought, without mental construct at
discriminations and serene condition, and such is the characteristic distinctions, That is the differentiation: these all. Without
without purpose, this is what has not been seen of truth. character of reality are the characteristics distinctions. No
the mark of reality. will become visible (that-ness). of suchness. purpose. This is the
through what is seen. nature of ultimate
18.9
Original existence, reality.
which can never be
converted by something
different, really exists
as it is, and such a real
world manifests itself
having its own
characteristics.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 102
First off, what arises It is clear that each Whatever that arises Whatever comes into Whatever arises Something whose
depending on that is individual thing exists depending upon being dependent on dependent on arising depends on
neither identical to nor distinctly, because each whatever, that is not another Is not identical something else is at another is neither
different from that. individual thing can identical nor different to that thing. Nor is it that time neither that identical to nor
Therefore that is never be identified with from it. Therefore, it is different from it. very thing nor other different from the
neither disrupted nor another at all. As each neither annihilated nor Therefore it is neither than it. Hence it is other. Therefore, it is
18.10
permanent [neither individual thing can eternal. nonexistent in time nor neither severed nor neither non-existent
annihilated nor eternal]. never be identified with permanent. permanent. nor eternal . . . .
something different,
what is not
instantaneous can never
be eternal at all.

Non-differentiated, [The world] does not That is without a variety By the buddhas, patrons That ambrosial teaching
non-identical, non- have more than one of meanings or one of the world, This of the buddhas, those
momentary, non- aim, it never has several single meaning, it is not immortal truth is guardians of the world,
permanent, this is the aims, it is never annihilation nor is it taught: Without is neither the same nor
immortal teaching of interrupted, and it is eternal. Such, it is identity, without different, neither
the buddhas, lords of all never eternal. The idea reminisced, is the distinction; Not severed nor permanent.
18.11
the worlds. that such a world is immortal message of nonexistent in time, not
included among the the Buddhas, the permanent.
gods is denied by the patrons of the world.
many people who have
got the Truth.

When accomplished [The idea of soul] does When the fully When the fully When perfect buddhas
buddhas do not arise not appear among enlightened ones do not enlightened ones do not do not appear, and
and sravakas cease to people who are called appear; on the waning appear, And when the when their disciples
be, pratyeka buddhas Buddhas [who have of disciples; the wisdom disciples have have died out, the
with independent arrived at the Truth], of the self-enlightened disappeared, The wisdom of the self-
knowledge come forth. and among the people ones proceeds without wisdom of the self- awakened ones will
who are called iravakas association. enlightened ones , Will vividly arise without
[who revere theoretical arise completely reliance.
18.12
explanations] the idea without a teacher.
of soul has also
vanished. Only among
people who are called
pratyekabuddhas [who
revere general
circumstances] is the
problem of soul pushed

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 103
forward as a problem of
knowledge that is
isolated from the real
circumstances.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 104
Chapter 19

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Investigation of Time
19 Analysis of Time Examination of Time Examination of Time Examination of Time
(Time)
If the present and the
The time when the If the present and the If the present and the If the present and the
future are to be present moment has future exist contingent future Depend on the future were contingent
dependent on the past,
not yet arrived may be upon the past, then the past, Then the present on the past, then the
the present and future
the past, [and so] The present and the future and the future Would present and the future
will be in past time...
fact that the present would be in the past have existed in the past. would have existed in
19.1
moment has yet not time. the past.
arrived may mean that
the process of time had
been maintained in the
past.
Again, if the present The time when the Again, if the present If the present and the If the present and
and the future do not present moment has and the future were not future Did not exist future did not exist
exist there, how would not yet arrived may be to exist therein [i.e., in there, How could the there, then how could
the present and the the time when the the past), how could the present and the future the present and the
future depend on it? solidity at the present present an,d the future Be dependent upon it? future be contingent on
moment has not yet be contingent upon it?
been realized, [And] the that?
19.2
fact that the present
moment has not yet
arrived may be a
perfectly real fact,
which is originally
impossible to express
with words.
Again, no demonstrated When the real situation Moreover, non- If they are not Without being
past occurs has not yet been contingent upon the dependent upon the contingent on the past
independent of both. realized, relating with past, their [i.e. of the past, Neither of the two neither can be
Therefore, present and the real facts or relating present and future] would be established. established. Hence the
future time do not with recognition, it is establishment is not Therefore neither the present and the future
19.3
occur. very difficult for the evident. Therefore, present Nor the future times also do not exist.
past to become neither a present nor a would exist.
recognized actually. The future time is evident.
fact that the present
moment has not yet

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 105
arrived may suggest
that "time" has not yet
been recognized.
By this method, neither Both the real world on Following the same By the same method, These very stages can
of the two remainders the earth and the world method, the remaining The other two divisions- be applied to the other
are concluded [to exist]: above move relying two periods of [time] past and future, Upper, ! two. Superior, inferior,
and [the same upon action. [And in as~well ~ related lower, middle, etc., middling etc.,
conclusion concerning] such situations, for the concepts such as the Unity, etc., should be singularity and so on
above, below, middle, first time] that which is highest, die lowest and understood. can also be understood
19.4
etc., identity, etc., the highest, that which the middle, and also [thus].
would be drawn. is the lowest, and that identity, etc. should be
which is the middle are characterized.
combined into one
reality relying upon our
own action.
What does not endure Time cannot be grasped A non-static time is pot A nonstatic time is not Non-dwelling time
is not grasped by time without continuity, and observed. A static time grasped. Nothing one cannot be
and enduring time does time without continuity is not evident. Even if could grasp as apprehended. Since
not occur. And how is cannot be recognized. the unobserved time Stationary time exists. If time which can be
time caused to be Time is the real were to be observed, time is not grasped, apprehended, does not
known by what is not situation of the fusion how can it be made how is it known? exist as something
19.5 grasped by grasping? between that which is known? which dwells, how can
grasped and that which one talk of
is not grasped, and it is unapprehendable time?
impossible for the real
situation of time to
become the object of
recognition.
If time depends on a When it is clear that If it is assumed that If time depends on an If time depended on
being, where is there time produces time exists depending entity, Then without an things, where would
time without a being? existence, how is it upon an existent, how entity how could time time which is a non-
Not any being exists, so possible for time to can . . . there be time exist? The re is no thing exist? If there
where will time exist? move departing from without an existent? No existent entity. So how were no things at all,
19.6
existence? When the existent whatsoever is can time exist? where would a view of
idea of existence never found to exist. Where time exist?
exists at all, how will it can time be?
be possible for time to
exist even in the future?

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 106
Chapter 20

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Investigation of
Examination of the Examination of Examination of
20 Analysis of the Whole Combination
inclusive Grasp Harmony Combination
(Combination)
If an effect is produced When reason pervades If the effect were to If, arising from the If a fruit is born from
by the whole of cause the reliable facts, the arise from a harmony of combination of Causes the combination of
and conditions and inclusive grasp has been cause and conditions, and conditions, The cause and conditions
exists in the whole, how born and is working. But and if it were to exist in effect is in the and exists in the
is it produced by the when we notice that the the harmony, how can it combination, How could combination, how can it
whole? idea of a result has arise from the harmony? it arise from the be born from the
20.1 been realized already combination? combination itself?
relying upon the
inclusive grasp, there is
no possibility for the
inclusive grasp to be
born newly at all.

If an effect is produced When reason pervades If the effect were to If, arising from the If a fruit is born from
by the whole of cause the reliable facts, the arise from a harmony of combination of Causes the combination of
and conditions and does inclusive grasp is born. cause and conditions and conditions, The cause and conditions
not exist in the whole, But if the idea of result and if it were not to effect is not in the and does not exist in
how is it produced by is not really included in exist in the harmony, combination, How could the combination, how
20.2
the whole? the inclusive grasp, the how can it arise from it arise from the can it be born from the
inclusive grasp does not the harmony? combination? combination itself?
have to work newly
again.

If an effect exists in the Even when reason If it is assumed that the f the effect is in the If the fruit exists in the
whole of cause and pervades the reliable effect exists in the combination Of causes combination of cause
conditions, all of the facts, it may be possible harmony of cause and and conditions, Then it and conditions, it would
whole would never be that a result really conditions, should it not should be grasped in be correct for it to be
20.3 included in it and all of exists relying upon the be observed in the the combination. But it apprehendable in the
the whole is not inclusive grasp itself. If harmony? However, it is is not grasped in the combination but it is
included by it. we decide that it is not observed in the combination. not apprehendable in
absolutely impossible to harmony. the combination.
grasp the real world, it

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 107
is also absolutely
impossible for the
inclusive grasp to work
further.

If the effect does not When a result really If the effect were not to If the effect is not in the f the fruit does not exist
exist in the whole of exists in the reliable exist in the harmony of combination Of causes in the combination of
cause and conditions, facts and in the cause and conditions, and conditions, Then cause and conditions,
causes and conditions inclusive grasp, what is then the cause and actual causes and the causes and
would be the same as called result can never conditions would be conditions Would be conditions would be
uncaused by means of exist really. Perhaps it is comparable to non- like noncauses and comparable to non-
conditions. true that both reason cause and non- nonconditions. causes and conditions.
20.4
and the reliable facts conditions.
are supported by
something that is
completely different
from reason and the
reliable facts.

If the cause is stopped If reason was produced 20.5. Missing If the cause, in having If the cause stops once
by the causality having by the benevolence of its effect, Ceased to it has given the cause to
been given to the result, reason itself have its causal status, the fruit, there would
effect, that given and would not manifest there would be two be a double nature of
that stopped would be [because of its] being kinds of cause: With and the cause: one that
two forms of cause. suppressed by result. If without causal status. gives and one that
those benevolences stops.
20.5
from result produced a
suffocated situation, it
may be that because of
that situation of reason,
the mind has been
divided into two parts.

If the cause is stopped If reason has been 20.6. Missing If the cause, not yet If the cause stops
by the causality not produced without any having Produced its without having given
having been given to influence from result, effect, ceased, Then the cause to the fruit,
the effect, that effect reason is regulated by having arisen from a those fruits which are
20.6
produced where the itself. What has been ceased cause, The born after the cause has
cause stopped would be born in the self- effect would be without stopped would be
without cause. regulated condition is a cause. uncaused.
just the world, so it is

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 108
possible for result to
exist only as something
unreasonable.

Again, if the effect When the idea of result 20.7. Missing If the effect were to If the fruit were also
would arise together is realized relying upon arise simultaneously born at the same time
with the whole, it the inclusive grasp, the with the collection, as the combination, it
follows that the image of result is also Then the produced and would follow that the
producer and the seen. The power that the producer Would producer and the
produced are has ability to produce arise simultaneously. produced would be
20.7 simultaneous. things and phenomena simultaneous.
also has ability to
produce [result and
reason] in parallel, and
that power is
manifesting itself really.

If the effect would arise There is a case that 20.8. Missing If the effect were to If the fruit were born
prior to the whole, the before result manifests arise Prior to the prior to the
effect, separated from itself in the inclusive combination, Then, combination, there
cause and conditions, grasp, it may be that without causes and would occur an
would be without cause. result manifests itself in conditions, The effect uncaused fruit which
20.8 this world. When reason would arise causelessly. has no cause and
has been regulated, it is conditions.
possible for result to
exist as something
unreasonable.

If, where the cause has When result is Missing ...become the If, the cause having If [when] a cause stops,
ceased, the cause would regulated by the power transformation of the ceased, the effect Were it is forever transferred
transmigrate to the of reason, there is the cause, then it follows a complete to the fruit, then it
effect, a rebirth of an possibility of parallel that there is a rebirth of transformation of the would follow that the
already-born cause coexistence on the basis a cause that was already cause, Then a previously cause which was born
20.9
follows. of reason. | Even before born. arisen cause Would before would be born
the birth of reason, the arise again. again.
fact of birth is also
much related with it.

How would what is Even if it were possible How can a cause that How can a cause, having How can the production
20.10 stopped and ceased for result to produce has ceased, has reached ceased and dissolved, of fruit be produced by
give rise to an arisen phenomena, it is not its end, give rise to an Give rise to a produced the stopping and

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 109
effect? And how would possible for the self- effect. that is already effect? How can a cause disappearing [of
an enduring cause be an regulated situation to arisen? How can a cause, joined with its effect something]? Also how
occasion that gives rise follow the downward even though enduring, produce it If they can fruit be produced
to an effect? way at all. | How is it produce an effect, persist together? by related causes which
possible for reason to when it is separated persist with it?
be a kind of fixed from the latter?
existence? But it is j
possible for what is
concealed to manifest
itself being helped by
the idea of result.

Moreover, the occasion What is concealed now What cause, even if it Moreover, 'if not joined If cause and fruit are
which would give rise to has the possibility of were not separated with its cause, What not related, what fruit
the effect is not that manifesting as from the effect, will effect can be made to can be produced?
effect. Indeed, the miscellaneous things give rise to the effect ? arise? Neither seen nor Causes do not produce
effect is not produced and phenomena A cause does not unseen by causes Are fruits they either see or
by either a seen or an utilizing the idea of produce an effect effects produced. don’t see.
unseen cause, result, but it is either imperceptibly or
completely impossible perceptibly.
20.11 to produce what is
called result. In cases of
invisibility or cases of
visibility, it is
completely impossible
for reason to be
brought into the world
at all.

20.12 Indeed, a past cause is If [result and reason] do Indeed, the assemblage There is never a The simultaneous
not together with a past not belong to the past of a past effect with a simultaneous connection of a past
effect. What arises does and do not rely upon past or a future or a connection Of a past fruit with a past, a
not occur accompanied the past, that which is present cause is not effect With a past, a future and a present
by what is present nor included by result and evident. non-arisen, Or an arisen cause never exists.
by what is not present. that which relies upon cause.
reason are the same,
and so, Without having
any relation with
whether [result and
reason] have been born
or not, the inclusive

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 110
grasp [of result and
reason] can be found
everywhere.

Indeed, a non-present Because the state of Indeed, an assemblage There is never a The simultaneous
cause is not together having been born and of the present effect simultaneous connection of a present
with a present effect. the state of having not with a future or a past connection Of a non- fruit with a future, a
What arises does not being born are or a present cause is not arisen effect · With a past and a present
occur accompanied by completely different in evident. past, a non-arisen, Or an cause never exists.
the past nor by the their dimensions, cases arisen cause.
present. of being included in
result and cases of
relying upon reason
20.13 both have the same
opportunity to exist.
When there is no
reliance upon the past
or upon having been
born, the inclusive grasp
[of result and reason]
can be found
everywhere.

Indeed, a present cause Because there is a Indeed, as assemblage Without connecting, The simultaneous
is not together with a dimensional difference of the future How can a cause connection of a future
non-present effect. between the state of effect :with a present or produce an effect? fruit with a present, a
What arises does not not being born and the a future or a past cause Where there is future and a past cause
occur accompanied by state relying upon is not evident. connection, How can a never exists.
what is not present nor having been born, it is cause produce an
by what has perished. possible that what is effect?
included in result and
what relies upon reason
20.14
can occur together. In
cases without birth, and
not relying upon
destruction, it is
possible to recognize
that the inclusive grasp
[of result and reason]
exists everywhere.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 111
Where there is no real Reason can never be When an assemblage If the cause is empty of When there is no
association, how is the the accumulation of does not exist, how can an effect, How can it connection, how can a
effect born by the concrete individual a cause produce an produce an effect? If cause produce fruit?
cause? Or where there things, so it is effect ? When a n the cause is not empty Even when there is
is a real association, impossible for reason to assemblage exists, how of an effect, How can it connection, how can a
how is the effect produce result at all. can a cause produce an produce an effect? cause produce fruit?
20.15 produced by the cause? Even if reason exists effect?
really and manifests
itself in concrete
individual things, it is
impossible for reason to
produce result at all.

If the cause is open to Even if reason keeps the If it is assumed that the A nonempty effect does If a cause is empty of
an effect, how is an balanced state relying cause is empty of an not arise. The nonempty fruit, how can it
effect produced? If the upon result, result is effect, how can it would not cease. This produce fruit? If a
cause is not open to an never produced in the produce an effect? If it nonempty would be The cause is not empty of
effect, how is an effect real world at all. Even if is assumed that the non-ceased and the fruit, how can it
produced? reason does not cause is not empty of an non-arisen. produce fruit?
20.16 maintain the balanced effect, how can it
state being disturbed by produce an effect ?
result, how is it possible
for result to be
produced in the real
world at all?

An effect will not arise Even if it is unbalanced, A non-empty effect will How can the empty Unempty fruit would
by being non-open and it is impossible for not arise; a non-empty arise? How can the not be produced; the
will not cease by being result to manifest itself effect will not cease. empty cease? The unempty would not
non-open. What is not in the real world at all, For, the non-ceased and empty will hence also stop. That unempty is
open will be non-arising and unbalanced non-arisen will also be Be the non-ceased and unstoppable and also
and non-ceasing. conditions will not the non-empty. non-arisen. producible.
maintain themselves in
20.17 the regulated
conditions at all. It is
not always clear for the
self-regulated state to
be recognized, and it is
also probable that
unbalanced situations
will naturally continue

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 112
further.

How will what is open The balanced state does How will the empty For cause and effect to How would empty
arise, how will what is not have any natural arise and how will the be identical Is not [fruit] be produced?
open cease? Surely it tendency to appear, and empty cease? If tenable. For cause and And how would the
follows that what is the balanced state something is empty, it effect to be different Is empty stop? It follows
open is non-ceasing and never has any natural follows that it is non- not tenable. that that empty too is
non-arising. tendency to vanish in ceased and non-arisen. unstoppable and also
the future. The unproducible.
20.18 balanced state never
has any tendency to
vanish in future at all,
and it is much related
with that which does
not have the tendency
to appear newly.

Indeed, an identity of The oneness of reason The identity of cause If cause and effect were It is never possible that
cause and effect does and result never occurs and effect is indeed not identical, Produced and cause and fruit are
not take place. Indeed, at all, And it does not appropriate. The producer would be identical. It is never
a difference between occur also that reason difference between identical. possible that cause and
20.19
cause and effect does and result do not have cause and effect is fruit are other.
not happen. any relation with each indeed not appropriate.
other at all.

In the identity of cause If result and reason are f there were to be Examination of If cause and fruit were
and effect, the one, this suggests that identity of cause and Combination If cause identical, produce and
producer would be one the oneness is a effect, then there and effect were producer would be
with the product. In the combination between would be oneness of different, Cause and identical. If cause and
difference of cause and that which produces producer and the non-cause would be. fruit were other, cause
effect, the cause would and that which is produce. If there were alike. and non-cause would be
be equal to no cause. produced. If result and to be difference be , similar.
20.20 reason are separate, it tween cause and effect,
may be because the then the cause would
reasonable and the be equal to a non-cause.
unreasonable are
combined into one and
are related to each
other.

20.21 What cause will give rise When result is strong as How is it that a cause If an effect bad If fruit existed

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 113
to an effect that truly a combination of will produce an effect entitihood, What could essentially, what would
exists as self-nature? subjective existence which comes to be on have caused it to arise? a cause produce? If
What cause will give rise and concrete fact, it is its own nature? How is it If an effect bad no fruit did not exist
to an effect that does impossible for reason to that a cause will entitihood, What could essentially, what would
not truly exist as self- produce anything at all. produce an effect which have caused it to arise? a cause produce?
nature? When result is strong does not come to be on
because of the its own nature?
combination of
subjective existence
and abstract situations,
it may be impossible for
reason to produce
anything even in the
future.

Causation of what is not When nothing has yet Moreover, the q1usal If something is not If it were not
arising does not take appeared, it is also efficacy· of something producing an effect, It is productive, the cause
place. And in failing to impossible for what is that is not producing is not tenable to attribute itself would be
prove causation, the reasonable to appear at not appropriate. In the causality. If it is not impossible. If the cause
effect will be of what? all. When what is absence of causal tenable to attribute itself were impossible,
20.22 reasonable has not yet efficacy, to what will causality, Then of what whose would the fruit
manifested at all, it is the effect belong? will the effect be? be?
impossible for result to
exist at all anywhere in
the universe.

Since that whole of The world, which is Whatever harmony of If the combination Of If whatever is a
causes and conditions is based upon reason as causes and conditions causes and conditions Is combination of causes
not produced by itself one of the reliable there is, it is not not self-produced, How and conditions does not
or by means of a non- facts, never produces produced by itself or by does it produce an produce itself by itself,
self, how would it soul, in any case, and it another. If so, how can effect? how could it produce
produce an effect? never relies upon soul it produce an effect ? fruit?
20.23 at all. How is it possible
for the world, which has
been produced by the
inclusive grasp, to
produce result in any
case?

The effect is not made What is really produced The effect is not made Therefore, not made by Therefore, there is no
20.24 by the whole, and the as the inclusive grasp is by the harmony, nor is it combination, And not fruit which has been

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 114
effect is not made by different from result, not made by a harmony. without a combination made by combination
what is not the whole. and what has not been Where indeed can there can the effect arise. If [or] made by non-
Where does the whole produced by the be a harmony of there is no effect, combination. If fruit
of conditions exist inclusive grasp is also conditions without a n Where can there be a does not exist, where
without an effect? not result. Now that the effect. combination of can a combination of
inclusive grasp really conditions? conditions exist?
exists as the reliable
fact [of reason], it is
also completely
impossible for us to
neglect the existence of
result anywhere at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 115
Chapter 21

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Examination of Examination of Examination of Investigation of Rising
Analysis of Origination
21 Coexistence and Occurrence and Becoming and and Passing
and Dissolution
Universal Existence Dissolution Destruction (Disappearance)
Dissolution does not If nothing exists at all, Dissolution does not Destruction does not Passing does not exist
exist either with or or if various things exist exist either without or occur without without or together
without origination. together, universal with occurrence. becoming. It does not with rising. Rising does
Origination does not existence never relies Occurrence does not occur together with it. not exist without or
exist either with or upon coexistence. If exist either without or Becoming does not together with passing.
21.1
without dissolution. nothing exists at all, or with dissolution. occur without
if various things exist destruction. It does not
together, coexistence occur together with it ..
never relies upon
universal existence.
What will dissolution If coexistence does not How can there be How could there be How can passing exist
then be without exist, it is impossible for dissolution without destruction Without without rising? Is there
origination, death universal existence to occurrence, death becoming? How could death without birth?
without birth, exist at all even in a without birth, there be death without There is no passing
dissolution without nominal way. The state dissolution without birth? There is no without rising.
21.2 generation? in which there is no uprising? destruction without
birth or death is called becoming.
“death,” and so it is not
permissible for us even
to deny the appearance
of the world.
How will there be Even if universal How can there be How could destruction How could passing exist
dissolution together existence relied upon dissolution along with and becoming Occur together with rising?
with origination? coexistence, how is it occurrence? Indeed, simultaneously? Death Death does not exist at
Indeed, death possible [for universal simultaneous birth and and birth Do not occur the same time as birth.
contemporary with existence and death are similarly not simultaneously.
21.3 birth does not occur. coexistence] ever to be evident.
thought of together at
the same moment? This
is because it is difficult
for us to have the real
feeling that birth and

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 116
death actually exist tog
What will origination How would it be How can there be How could there be How could rising exist
then be without possible for coexistence occurrence without becoming Without without passing?
dissolution? Indeed, to exist even in a dissolution, foe the destruction? For Things are never not
never does the nominal way without impermanence in impermanence Is never impermanent.
impermanence of the existence of existences is never not absent from entities.
beings not occur. universal existence? It is evident.
21.4 impossible ever to
recognize an individual
concrete thing as being
included in abstract
concepts of
miscellaneous
existences at all.
How will there be How would it be How can occurrence be How could destruction How could rising exist
origination without possible for coexistence evident along with And becoming occur together with passing?
dissolution? Indeed, ever to stop its mutual dissolution? Indeed, simultaneously? Just as Birth does not exist at
death contemporary relationship with simultaneous birth and birth and death Do not the same time as death.
with birth does not universal existence? It is death are similarly not occur simultaneously.
21.5 occur. absolutely impossible evident.
for the birth and death
[of one person] to
simultaneously be
recognized just at the
present moment at all.
21.6 The establishment of It is the real situation of The occurrence of How, when things How can those that are
them either conjoined the world that mutually things, either together cannot Be established not established either
by difference or different things and or separately, is not as existing, With, or mutually together or
without difference does phenomena exist at the evident: If so, how can apart from one another, not mutually together
not occur. How then present moment, and at their establishment be Can they be established be established?
does the establishment the same time when we evident? at all?
of both occur? have begun not to be
conscious of the mutual
relations of things and
phenomena, this is just
the next development.
In such cases of
development, the real
situation does not
become the object of
recognition [by the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 117
brain or sense
perception], and further
development after this
recognition can never
become the object of
recognition at all.
Origination of decay Coexistence does not Occurrence of that There is no becoming of he finished does not
does not exist, exist really in a concrete which is waning does the disappeared. There rise; the unfinished too
origination of non- place; coexistence does not exist, nor is there is no becoming of the does not rise; the
decay does not exist. not exist really in space. occurrence of that nondisappeared. There finished does not pass;
Dissolution of decay Coexistence cannot be which is not waning. is no destruction of the the unfinished too does
21.7
and dissolution of non- found in an abstract Dissolution of that disappeared. There is not pass.
decay do not exist. area, and universal which is waning does no destruction of the
existence cannot be not exist, nor is there nondisappeared.
found in any abstract dissolution of the not
area at all. waning.
Without a being, When there is no Without an existent, When no entities exist, Rising and passing do
origination and existence, both occurrence as well as There is no becoming or not exist without the
dissolution do not coexistence and dissolution are not destruction. Without existence of things.
occur. Without universal existence can evident. Without becoming and Things do not exist
origination and never be recognized at occurrence as well as destruction, There are without the existence
21.8 dissolution, a being all. When both dissolution, an existent no existent entities. of rising and passing.
does not occur. coexistence and is not evident.
universal existence do
not exist, it is
impossible for existence
itself to be recognized.
Origination and ..[ At the same time] Either occurrence or It is not tenable for the Rising and passing are
dissolution of what is both coexistence and dissolution of the empty To become or to not possible for the
open does not take universal existence empty is not be destroyed. It is not empty; rising, passing
place. Origination and never appear in the appropriate. Either tenable for the are not possible for the
21.9
dissolution of what is unbalanced state. occurrence or nonempty To become or non-empty also.
not open does not dissolution of the non- to be destroyed.
happen. empty is also not
appropriate.
“Origination and Both coexistence and It is not appropriate to It is not tenable That Rising and passing
dissolution are universal existence assume that occurrence destruction and cannot possibly be one;
identical” is not said. never appear as and dissolution are becoming are identical. rising and passing also
21.10
“Origination and oneness. Both identical. It is not It is not tenable that cannot possibly be
dissolution are coexistence and appropriate to assume destruction and other.
different” is not said. universal existence that occurrence and becoming are different.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 118
never appear as two. dissolution are
different.
As origination and Coexistence is just what It may occur to you that If you think you see If you think that you can
disappearance is seen is seen, and so it may be both occurrence and both Destruction and see rising and passing,
by you, so it could exist. that universal existence dissolution are seen. becoming, Then you see rising and passing are
But origination and exists similarly to However, both destruction and seen by delusion.
disappearance is exactly coexistence. occurrence and becoming Through
21.11
so seen out of delusion. Coexistence is just what dissolution are seen impaired vision.
is seen, and so universal only through confusion.
existence has also
departed from the state
of delusion without fail.
A being could not be There is no case that An existent does not An entity does not arise Things are not created
born by a being, a being existence is born from arise from an existent; from an entity. An from things; things are
is not born by a non- existence, and there is neither does an existent entity does not arise not created from
being. A non--being no case that existence is arise from a non- from a nonentity. A nothing; nothing is not
could not be born by a born from existent. A non-existent nonentity does not created from nothing;
21.12 non-being, a non-being nonexistence. does not arise from a arise from a nonentity. nothing is not created
is not born by a being. Nonexistence is not non-existent; neither A nonentity does not from things.
born from does a non-existent arise from an entity.
nonexistence, and arise from an existent
nonexistence is not
born from existence.
A being is not born by In cases of subjective An existent does not An entity does not arise
Things are not created
itself nor born by ideas and in cases of arise from itself, or from from itself. It is not
from themselves, nor
another, nor by both objective perceptions, another or from both arisen from another. It
are they created from
itself and another. It is how is it possible for itself and another. is not arisen from itself
something else; they
21.13
born by what? both subjective ideas Whence can it then and another. How can it
are not created from
and objective arise? be arisen? [both] themselves and
perceptions to be born something else. How
at all? are they created?
He who has agreed to The fact that the For him who is If one accepts the If you assert the
the continuity of eternal and the engrossed in existence, existence of entities, existence of things, the
existence, the view of instantaneous are eternalism or Permanence and the views of eternalism and
permanence and combined into one annihilationism will view of complete annihilationism will
annihilation follows, for produces existence in necessarily follow, for nonexistence follow. follow, because things
21.14
existence would indeed the phenomena before he would assume that it For these entities Must are permanent and
certainly be either us. Because existence is is either permanent or be both permanent and impermanent.
permanent or seen before us as real impermanent. impermanent.
impermanent. existence, there is the
possibility that what is

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 119
essential and what is
not essential can exist
at the same time.
The continuity of rising It is impossible for the [On the contrary,] for If one accepts the If you assert the
and passing away is instantaneous, which is him who is engrossed in existence of entities existence of things,
indeed the continuity of included in the existence, there would Nonexistence and eternalism and
both cause and effect. phenomena before our be neither permanence will not annihilationism will not
eyes, to produce annihilationism nor follow. Cyclic existence be, because the
existence, and it is also eternalism, for, indeed, is the continuous continuity of the rising
impossible for the becoming is the series Becoming and and passing of cause -
eternal to produce of up~ing and ceasing destruction of causes effect is becoming.
21.15
existence. This is of cause and effect. and effects.
because appearance,
disappearance, and
continuity are
absolutely the same as
existence, which is just a
combination of result
and reason.
If the continuity of When appearance, If it is assumed that If cyclic existence is the If the continuity of the
rising and passing away disappearance, and becoming is the series continuous Becoming rising and passing of
is the continuity of continuity are of uprising and ceasing and destruction of cause-effect is
cause and effect, it interpreted as of the cause and effect, causes and effects, becoming, because
follows that only one existence, which then with the repeated Then from the what has passed will
[occurrence] of arising includes result and non-arising of that nonarising of the not be created again, it
and of passing away is reason being as one, which ceases, it will destroyed Follows the will follow that the
the annihilation of Even disintegration, follow that there will. nonexistence of cause. cause is annihilated.
21.16 causality. which can be be annihilation of the
considered on the basis cause.
of the intellect, follows
the idea that
disappearance can
occur only once, and we
can consider the
problem on the basis of
instantaneous reason.
By means of the self- It is not true that The non-existence of If entities exist with If things exist
nature of a real abstract existence is that which possesses entitihood, Then their essentially, it would be
21.17 existent, a non-real included within real existence in terms of nonexistence would unreasonable [for them]
existent does not occur. existence, and it is also self-nature is not make no sense. But at to become nothing. At
At the time of nirvana never true that abstract appropriate. [On the the time of nirvana, the time of nirvana

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 120
there is annihilation of existence is restricted contrary,] at the time of Cyclic existence ceases [they] would be
the uninterrupted by and relies upon freedom, there will be completely, having been annihilated, because
series of births and subjective existence at annihilation as a result pacified. the continuity of
transmigrations on all. When it is balanced, of the appeasement of becoming is totally
account of calmness. even instantaneousness the stream of pacified.
itself can exist as becoming.
continuous existence
departing from an
arrested condition.
A being first occurs In the ultimate state, It is not proper to If the final one has If the end stops, it is
where the last has not the state of being assume that there is ceased, The existence unreasonable for there
ceased [or] a being first completely free, the first coming when the of a first one makes no to be a beginning of
occurs where the last most excellent last has ceased. Nor is it sense. If the final one becoming. When the
has not not ceased. situations are not proper to assume that has not ceased, The end does not stop, it is
21.18 restricted as existence. there is first becoming existence of a first one unreasonable for there
In the ultimate state, when the last has not makes no sense. to be a beginning of
even though there is no ceased: becoming.
suppression, the most
important thing is
restricted as existence.
If the first is born where When self-regulation If the first were to be If when the final one If the beginning is
the last is presently has been realized, that born when the last is was ceasing, Then the created while the end is
ceasing, what is ceasing which is the most ceasing, then that which first was arising, The stopping, the stopping
would be one and what excellent has been born is ceasing would be one one ceasing would be would be one and the
is being born would be into the ultimate and that which is being one. The one arising creating would be
another. situation. The only born would be another. would be another. another.
situation, that is, the
self-regulated situation,
21.19 solely exists, so the fact
is that the self-
regulated situation
exists before our eyes
at the present moment,
and such a situation
exists only as one
moment before and
after.
If not, presently ceasing The state of being self- If it is asserted that the If, absurdly, the one If it is also unreasonable
and presently being regulated and the state ceasing is also the being arising And the one for stopping and
21.20 born occur where those of being born are not born, this would not be ceasing we re the same, creating to be together,
skandhas being born always combined. All proper For, in that. case, Then whoever is dying aren’t the aggregates

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 121
are the same as these things and phenomena whatever that is born in with the aggregates Is that die also those that
dying. are dying as things and relation to the also arising. are created?
phenomena, and at the aggregates, would also
same time among those be dying at the same
things and phenomena time.
all things are being born
as aggregates.
Thus the continuing In the three times (past, Thus, the stream of Since the series of cyclic Likewise, if the
series of births and present, and future), becoming is not proper existence is not evident continuity of becoming
transmigrations is not the restricted situations in the context of the In the three times, If it is is not reasonable at any
reasonable in the three do not always continue three periods of time. not in the three times, of the three times, how
times. How can that as birth or wandering, How can there be a How could there be a can there be a
which does not exist in which seems to be stream of becoming series of cyclic continuity of becoming
the three times be continuing forever. In that does not exist existence? which is non-existent in
[regarded] as a the three times it is not during the three the three times?
21.21 “‘series”? true that those periods of time?
restricted conditions
are continuing and
really exist as birth and
limitless wandering at
all, and the restricted
conditions never
continue as birth and
wandering.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 122
Chapter 22

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Investigation of the
Analysis of the Thus Examination of Examination of the Examination of the
22 Tathagata
Come/Thus Gone Realization Tathagata Tathagata
(Buddhanature)
Not the skandhas nor It is not true that the The tathagata is neither Neither the aggregates, Not the aggregates, not
different from the aggregates are nothing the aggregates nor nor different from the other than the
skandhas, nor are the more than what the different from them. aggregates, The aggregates; the
skandhas in him nor is definition of aggregate The aggregates are not aggregates are not in aggregates are not in
he in them. The suggests, but it is also in him; nor is he in the him, nor is he in the him; he is not in them:
Tathagata is not not true that the aggregates. He is not aggregates. The the Tathagata does not
possessed of skandhas. contents of the possessed of the Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
Who then is the aggregates are not aggregates. In such a possess the aggregates. What is the Tathagata?
Tathagata? always the same as the context, who is a What is the Tathagata?
definition of tathagata?
22.1 aggregates; the
contents of the five
aggregates are
sometimes real
individual things
themselves. Realization
is not separate from the
real aggregates, so
what is the real
situation of realization?

If the Buddha is clinging When Gautama Buddha, If a Buddha were to be If the Buddha depended If the buddha depends
to skandhas, he does departing from the five dependent upon the on the aggregates, He on the aggregates, he
not exist by self-nature. aggregates, accepted aggregates, he d es not would not exist through does not exist from an
He who does not exist all things and exist in terms of self- an essence. Not existing own-nature. How can
by self-nature, how phenomena as they nature. He who does through an essence, that which does not
22.2 does he exist by other- were, subjective not exist in terms of How could he exist exist from an own-
nature? existence [thoughts self~ nature; how can through otherness- nature exist from an
within the brain] never he exist in terms of essence? other-nature?
existed in the real world other nature?
at all. When subjective
existence never exists

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 123
at all, objective
existence [sense stimuli
from the external
world] can never be
recognized as existing
at all.

He who is dependent To a person who knows He who is dependent Whatever is dependent It is not tenable for
upon other-nature what objective upon other nature on another entity, Its something dependent
occurs as “not self.” And existence is, something would appropriately be selfhood is not on other-nature to be
how will he who is not different from soul without self. Yet, how appropriate. It is not self-existent. How can
self be the Tathagata? really appears clearly. can he who is without tenable that what lacks that which has no self-
And that which is self be a tathagata? a self Could be a existence be tathagata?
different from soul Tathagata.
22.3
exists clearly as a real
entity, so how is it
possible for realization
to be something that is
realized only in the
future?

If self-nature does not When subjective If there exists no self- If there is no essence, If self-nature does not
exist, how would other- existence [that which is nature, how could there How could there be exist, how can there be
nature exist? Without considered by the brain] be other-nature? otherness-essence? the existence of other-
self-nature or other- does not really exist, Without both self- Without possessing nature? What is a
nature, who is he, the how is it possible for nature and other- essence or otherness- Tathagata apart from
Tathagata? objective existence to nature, who is this essence, What is the own-nature and other-
exist at all? When we tathagata? Tathagata? nature?
22.4
have left both
subjective existence
and objective existence,
something that begins
to move is just
realization.

If any Tathagata would When [interpretative If there were to be a If without depending on If there exists a
be not clinging to the ideas such as] the tathagata because of the aggregates There tathagata [who is] not
skandhas, he would now aggregates have not non-grasping on to the were a Tathagata, Then depending on the
22.5 cling and then would be intervened at all, there aggregates, he should now he would be aggregates, he exists in
clinging. is the possibility that still depend upon them depending on them. depending [on them]
realization will occur in the present. As such Therefore he would now and will henceforth

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 124
actually. But when he will be dependent. exist through depend.
realization has been dependence.
emancipated from all
kinds of interventions
too freely, ironically
there is the tendency
for realization to be
disturbed.

Not any Tathagata However if we do not There exists no Inasmuch as there is no If there does not exist a
exists not clinging to have any relation with tathagata independent Dependent upon the tathagata [who is]not
skandhas. How will he the five aggregates, of the aggregates. How aggregates, How could depending on the
who does not exist by there is no possibility can he who does not something that is not aggregates, how does
not clinging be grasped? for realization. When exist dependently be dependent Come to be he grasp [depend on?
22.6 there is no recognition gasped? so? them]?
of the five aggregates,
there is no possibility
for reality to manifest
itself at all.

Nothing is unseized and Without a somewhat There is no sphere of There is no [Since] there is nothing
no one is clinging. Does unmoved attitude, even non-grasping, nor is appropriation. There is to be
the Tathagata somehow the function of there something ~ no appropriator. grasped/dependent on,
not exist without perception does not grasping. Neither is Without appropriation there can be no
clinging? appear at all. When there someone who is How can the re be a grasping/depending.
desire and attachment without grasping. How Tathagata? There is no tathagata at
22.7
are without restriction, can there be a all who is without
it is completely tathagata? grasping/depending.
impossible for
realization to exist at
all.

He who does not exist is It is not true that relying He who, sought for in Having been sought in If having examined in
presently being sought upon the combination the five-fold manner, the five-fold way, What, five ways, how can that
for by means of five real of reality and does not exist in the being neither identical tathagata who does not
and distinct forms of abstraction, realization form of a different nor different, Can be exist as that one or the
22.8 clinging. By what is the really exists. The mental identity, how can that thought to be the other be
Tathagata known? function of grasping tathagata be made Tathagata Through [conventionally]
something and the five known through grasping? understood by
aggregates are just one grasping? grasping/depending?
thing, which is a

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 125
combination of the two.
How is it possible for
reliance upon the
function of sense
perception to make it
possible to get
realization?

Because of this clinging, One who looks at the This grasping is not Whatever grasping That which is
what has self-nature real world just as the found in terms of self- there is Does not exist grasped/depended on
does not occur. What object of sense nature. How can that through essence. And does not exist from its
does not exist by self- perception without which does not exist in when something does own nature. It is
nature, how does that subjective existence terms of self-nature not exist through itself, impossible for that
exist by other nature? cannot recognize come to be in terms of It can never exist which does not exist
anything. Such other-nature.? through otherness- from its own nature to
22.9
subjective existence is essence. exist from another
not a real entity, so it is nature.
impossible for
subjective existence to
really exist at any place
at all.

And thus the one who In this way, the Thus, grasping and Thus grasping and
In that way, what is
clings is clinging to what balanced situation grasper are empty in grasper Together are
grasped/depended on
is everywhere open. produces the true every way. How can an empty in every respect.
and what
How is the open function of sense empty tathagata be How can an empty
grasps/depends are
Tathagata known by perception, and made known by Tathagata Be known
empty in every aspect.
22.10
means of what is open? therefore what is something that is through the empty?
How can an empty
perceived is all of the empty? tathagata be
world. [conventionally]
understood by what is
empty?
I am not saying that What is called the "Empty;'' "non-empty," "Empty" should not be Do not say “empty,” or
“what is open” or “what balanced state is not "both" or "neither" asserted. "Nonempty" “not empty,” or “both,”
is not open” could exist only an expression by these should not be should not be asserted. or “neither:” these are
or “both” or “neither.” the lips, and the declared. It is expressed Neither both nor mentioned for the sake
22.11 They are said only for expression of the only for the. purpose of neither should be of [conventional]
the purpose of unbalanced state can communication. asserted. They are only understanding.
teaching. also exist. The question used nominally.
of whether those two
situations [the balanced

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 126
state and the
unbalanced state] are
originally two facts, or
not two facts, is a
question that should be
concluded intuitively.

Where within fourfold If we assume that both How can the How can the Where can the four such
permanence, something eternal and tetralemma of eternal, tetralemma of as permanence and
impermanence, etc., is something noneternal non-eternal, etc., be in permanent and impermanence exist in
peace? Where within exist, how is it possible the peaceful? · How can impermanent, etc., Be this peaceful one?
fourfold finitude, for the four reliable the tetralemma of true of the peaceful? Where can the four such
infinity, etc., is facts [reason, the finite, infinite, etc., be in as end and no-end [of
happiness? external world, action, the peaceful? the world] exist in this
and reality] to exist in peaceful one?
the very stable state? If
22.12
it is true that both
something that ends
and something
unending exist, it might
be impossible for the
four reliable facts to
ever exist in the very
stable condition.

You are grasped and It is just the Discriminating on the One who grasps the Those who hold the
destroyed by grasping accomplishment of the basis of grasping or the view that the Tathagata dense apprehension,
false imaginings that aim to maintain the grasped, and firmly exists, having seized the “the tathagata exists”
the Tathagata “exists” stable state, and relying insisting that a Buddha, Constructs conceive the thought,
or “does not exist.” He upon it, what really tathagata"exists" or conceptual fabrications “he does not exist in
would be imagined to exists is realization "does not exist," a About one who has nirvana.”
the same as one who is itself. The opinion that person would think achieved nirvana.
deceased. the fact that is called similarly even of one
22.13
realization never really who has ceased.
exists might change
gradually, and the idea
[that realization does
not exist] might change
in future; then it may be
possible for us to
peacefully change the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 127
idea [that realization
never exists].

In that is open by When subjective When he is empty in Since he is by nature For that one empty of
nature, this thought: existence [which has terms of self-nature, empty, The thought own-nature, it is
“The Buddha exists or been considered by the the thought that the that the Buddha Exists entirely inappropriate
does not exist after brain] is in the balanced Buddha exists or does or does not exist After to think that once the
death” does not occur. state, there is no not exist after death is nirvana is not buddha has nirvana-ed
possibility for any kind not appropriate. appropriate. he either “exists” or
of apprehension to “does not exist.”
occur. [At the same time
when] objective
22.14 existence [which is the
opposite of subjective
existence] departs from
the self-regulated
situation, it is also said
that it is impossible for
a person who has
grasped the Truth to
exist.

Those who imagine the When people who are Those who generate Those who develop Those who make
Buddha, who is beyond expanding the Truth, obsessions with great mental fabrications fixations about Buddha
being described by false which has been gotten regard to the Buddha with regard to the who is beyond fixations
statements, are all already, have some kind who has gone beyond Buddha, Who has gone and without
destroyed by idle fancy. of characteristics it may obsessions and is beyond all fabrications, deterioration -- all those
They do not see the be difficult to change constant, all of them, As a consequence of who are damaged by
22.15
Tathagata. them. People who want impa4ed by obsessions, those cognitive fixations do not see the
to hurt all kinds of do not perceive the fabrications, Fail to see tathagata.
expansion have tathagata. the Tathagata.
difficulty meeting
realization.

What self-nature is the Realization has some Whatever is the self- Whatever is the essence Whatever is the own-
Tathagata, that self- characteristics like nature of the tathagata, of the Tathagata, That is nature of the tathagata,
nature is the world. The subjective existence, that is also the self- the essence of the that is the own-nature
22.16 Tathagata is without and such subjective nature of the universe. world. The Tathagata of this world. The
self-nature and the existence is made by The tathagata is devoid has no essence. The tathagata has no own-
world is without that the world, and by of self-nature. This world is without nature. This world has
self- nature. human societies. universe is also devoid essence. no own-nature.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 128
Realization is never of self-nature.
meager in contents and
it is not coarse, and
something that is not
meager in contents and
not coarse is the world
in which we are living
now, and it is the earth
itself.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 129
Chapter 23

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Examination of Examination of the Investigation of Error


23 Analysis of Error Examination of errors
Delusion Perversions (Confusion)
Desire, hatred, and What is born from Lust, hatred, and Desire, hatred, and It is said that desire,
delusion are said to rise desire, or from violent confusion are said have confusion all Arise from hatred, stupidity arise
from false emotion, hate, and thought as their source. thought, it is said. They from conceptuality;
discrimination. They delusion, is discussed Perversions regarding all depend on The they arise in
develop depending on only on the basis of the pleasant and the pleasant, the dependence on the
errors of purity and words. [This is] because unpleasant arise unpleasant, and errors pleasant, the
23.1
impurity. delusions of that which depending upon unpleasant and
is favorable and that these . . confusion. [they arise in
which is undesirable dependence on
pervade throughout the confusion about the
world without any pleasant and
doubt. unpleasant]
Whichever develop People usually maintain Whatever perversions Since whatever depends Whatever arises in
depending on errors of what is favorable and of the pleasant and the on the pleasant and the dependence upon the
purity and impurity, what is undesirable in a unpleasant that occur unpleasant Does not pleasant, the
they do not occur as completely deluded dependently are not exist through an unpleasant and
self-natures. Therefore, arrangement. They do evident in terms of self- essence, The confusion, (whatever
in truth, the not wish to recognize nature. Therefore, the defilements Do not arises in dependence on
23.2 defilements do not [things and phenomena] defilements are not in really exist. confusion about the
exist. adequately [by] themselves. pleasant and
departing from unpleasant) they have
subjective existence, so no own-nature,
even serious pain has therefore, afflictions do
already lost its reality. not really exist (do not
exist in themselves).
Where the existence or Images in the mind do The existence or the The self's existence or The existence or non-
non-existence of the not exist in reality or in non-existence of the nonexistence Has in no existence of self is not
self is not in any way unreality, so what is the self is not established in way been established. established in any way.
even established, meaning of the perfect any way. Without that, Without that, how could Without that, how can
23.3 without it in existence things and phenomena how can the existence the defilements' the existence or non-
or not in existence, how that are considered or the non-existence of Existence or existence of afflictions
are the defilements inside the mind? The defilements be nonexistence be be established?
established? perfect things and established? established?

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 130
phenomena that are
considered in the mind
do not exist either in
reality or in unreality, so
it is very difficult to
actually find such
accomplished images of
things and phenomena
within serious pain.
Indeed, whose are these Even if we permit the These defilements, The defilements are These afflictions are
defilements since he is existence of the world indeed, belong to somebody's. But that someone’s. But that
not established? Who of space as a receptacle, someone. Yet, such a one has not been [someone] is not
says, without anyone, it is completely person is not established. established. Without
defilements exist that impossible to permit established. In other Without that possessor, [someone], the
belong to no one? the real existence of words, in the absence of The defilement are afflictions are not
severe pains as the real anyone, these nobody's. anyone’s.
23.4
things and phenomena. defilements seem lo
Even if there were exist without belonging
nothing, or even if to anyone.
something exists, there
is no possibility for
severe pains to exist
anywhere at all.
Having demonstrated The situation that is The defilements are like View the defilements as Like [the self
that one’s own nature is similar to us looking at the view of one's own you view yourself: They apprehended in] the
not five-fold, where are our own body is a real personality. Within the are not in the defiled in view of one’s own body,
the defilements in the example of what is defiled, they are not the fivefold way. View the afflictions do not
afflicted one? Having called pain, so it is not found in the five-fold the defiled as you view exist in five ways in the
demonstrated that true that real entities way. The defiled is like your self: It is not in the afflicted. Like [the self
one’s own nature is not like the five the view of one's own defilements in the apprehended in] the
23.5 five-fold, where is the [aggregates] are personality, for even fivefold way. view of one’s own body,
afflicted one in the included within pain. § It within the defilements the afflicted does not
defilements? is similar to looking at it is not found in the exist in five ways in the
our own body; five-fold way. afflictions.
therefore it is not true
that real entities like
the five aggregates
exist within pain at all.
Errors of purity and The substance of The perversions The pleasant, the If confusion about the
23.6 impurity do not occur subjective existence can regarding the pleasant unpleasant, and the pleasant and
naturally. How are never become the and the unpleasant are errors Do not exist unpleasant does not

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 131
defilements dependent object of recognition, not evident from the through essence. Which exist from its own
on errors of purity and because [subjective standpoint of self- pleasant, unpleasant, nature, what afflictions
impurity? existence is just] the nature. Depending and errors could the can depend on
confusion of favorable upon which perversions defilements depend confusion about the
and unfavorable things. of the pleasant and the upon? pleasant and
It is very clear that pain unpleasant are these unpleasant?
is producing something, defilements?
and the confused
situation of favorable
and undesirable things
has been produced.
Physical form, sound, . Form, sound, taste, Material form, sound, Form, sound, taste, Colour/shape, sound,
taste, touch, smell, and touch, smell, and the taste, touch, smell and touch, Smell, and taste, tactile sensation,
events are imagined as rule of the universe are concepts, these are concepts of things: smell and dharmas:
six substantially existing the six [objects of the discriminated as the six- These six Are thought these six are conceived
23.7 things having desire, sense organs.]. The real fold foundations of lust, of as the foundation of as the basis of desire,
hatred, and delusion. situation of the world hatred, and confusion. Desire, hatred, and hatred and stupidity.
includes strong desire, confusion.
darkness, and illusion
and is always changing.
Physical form, sound, Form, sound, taste, Material form, sound, Form, sound, taste, Colour/shape, sound,
taste, touch, smell, and touch, smell, and the taste, touch smell as touch, Smelł, and taste, tactile sensation,
events are made-up rule of the universe are well as concepts, all concepts of things: smell and dharmas:
imaginary cities in the individually these are comparable to These six Should be these are like
23.8
sky, like dreams and independent. [They are] the city of the seen as only like a city gandharva-cities and
mirages. similar to Gandharva, gandharvas and of the Gandharvas and similar to mirages,
the city without a jail, or resemble mirages and Like a mirage or a dreams.
to a mirage, or to sleep. dreams. dream.
Where will purity or Where is it possible for How can the pleasant How could the Pleasant How can the pleasant
impurity be in these undesirable conditions and the unpleasant and unpleasant arise In and unpleasant occur in
people equal to illusions or desirable conditions come to be in people those that are like an those [things] which are
and like shadows? to exist even in the who are fabrications of illusory person And like like phantoms and
future? Although illusion or who are a reflection? similar to reflections?
demons and human comparable to mirror
23.9 beings live according to images?
social habits, even the
images of sun and moon
reflected on the surface
of water also belong to
circumstances similar to
social habits.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 132
Indeed, we teach that When something We make known that We say that the Something is called
purity is to depend on undesirable is not the unpleasant does not unpleasant Is “pleasant” in
impurity not existing regarded, neither that exist without being dependent upon the dependence on the
and purity depends on which is desirable nor contingent upon the pleasant, Since without unpleasant. Since that
that. Therefore, purity that which is pleasant, and that the depending on the would not exist without
23.10 does not happen. undesirable manifest pleasant, in its turn, is pleasant there is none. relation to the pleasant,
themselves. And in such dependent upon that It follows that the therefore, the pleasant
a situation even that [i.e. the unpleasant]. pleasant is not tenable. is not tenable.
which is beautiful never Therefore, the pleasant
manifests itself at all. [in itself] is not
appropriate.
Indeed, we teach that [At the same time] We make known that We say that the Something is called
impurity is to depend when that which is the pleasant does not pleasant Is dependent “pleasant” in
on purity not existing undesirable seems to be exist without being upon the unpleasant. dependence on the
and impurity depends clear, it will not be contingent upon the Without the unpleasant unpleasant. Since that
on that. Therefore, necessary [for such a unpleasant, and that there wouldn't be any. It would not exist without
23.11 impurity does not occur. fact] to become clear the unpleasant, in its follows that the relation to the pleasant,
again at all. turn, is dependent upon unpleasant is not therefore, the pleasant
that [i.e., the pleasant]. tenable. is not tenable.
Therefore, the
unpleasant [in itself] is
not evident.
Where purity is present, Without noticing when When the pleasant is Where there is no Something is called
from where will passion we are in a preferable not evident, whence can pleasant, How can there “unpleasant” in
arise? Where impurity is condition, it is there be lust? When the be desire? Where there dependence on the
not present, from impossible to find unpleasant is not is no unpleasant, How pleasant. Since that
where will hatred arise? strong passion in any evident, whence can can there be anger? would not exist without
place at all. Even when there be hatred? relation to the
23.12
we are in a very unpleasant, therefore,
undesirable condition, if the unpleasant is not
we do not know this tenable.
fact, it may be
impossible for hatred to
occur in any place at all.
If the error “there is The idea that the If there were to be If to grasp onto the If the pleasant does not
permanence in eternal is included grasping on to the view, view '"The exist, how can desire
impermanence” is so within the changeable "What is impermanent impermanent is exist? If the unpleasant
23.13 seized, impermanence may be incoherent. The is permanent," then permanent" were an does not exist, how can
does not occur. Where idea that it is impossible there is perversion. The error, Since in hatred exist?
is error seized in what is to find anything impermanent is not emptiness there is
open? changeable within the evident in the context nothing impermanent,

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 133
balanced state is never of the empty. How can How could that
wrong. The idea that there be grasping or grasping be an error?
something eternal is perversion?
included within that
which is changeable is
not logical, and so it is
not true.
If the error “there is If we can maintain a If grasping on to the If to grasp onto the If such an apprehension
permanence in state of relaxation view, "What is view '"The as “the impermanent is
impermanence” is so toward the idea that impermanent is impermanent is permanent” is confused,
seized, “impermanence” nothing is ever eternal, permanent," is permanent'' were an since impermanence
is also grasped. What is it is completely perversion, how is it error, Why isn 't does not exist in the
23.14
without error in what is impossible to hold a that even the grasping grasping on to the view empty, how can such an
open? confused idea even in after the view, "What is 65 "In emptiness there apprehension be
the balanced state. empty is impermanent," is nothing confused?
does not constitute a impermanent" an error?
perversion?
What is grasped by the When we think about That through which That by means of which [The means] by which
grasper and whoever is things and phenomena, there is grasping, there is grasping, and one apprehends, the
grasped by means of the main action is i whatever grasping the grasping, And the apprehension [itself],
grasping are all calmed. method of thinking there is, the grasper as grasper, and all that is the apprehender and
Therefore grasping itself, and the method well as that which is grasped: All are being the apprehended: all
does not occur. of thinking itself has grasped all these are relieved. It follows that are completely pacified,
begun to become the appeased. Therefore, its there is no grasping. therefore there is no
23.15 object of thinking. grasping is evident. apprehending.
Because the real
situation is that
everything is
completely serene, it is
not so easy to know the
method of
consideration itself. }
And where grasping is Even when it is unclear When grasping; wrongly If there is no grasping, If there is neither
present, either rightly how to consider the or rightly, is not Whether erroneous or confused nor right
or wrongly, whose error thinking method toward evident, for whom otherwise, Who will apprehension, who is
would it be, whose non- things and phenomena, would there be come to be in error? confused and who is not
23.16 error would it be? there can be a perversion and for Who will have no error? confused?
distinction between whom would there be
whether the direction is non-perversion?
opposite or the same.
Where is it possible for

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 134
the deluded thinking
method to exist? When
is it possible for the
nondeluded thinking
method to exist?
The errors of an erring If the matter of the Perversions do not Error does not develop Confusions do not occur
one do not develop. The methods of thinking is occur to one who is In one who is in error. for those who are
errors of a non-erring not solved, deluded already subjected to Error does not develop [already] confused;
one also do not methods of thinking will perversion. Perversions In one who is not in confusions do not occur
develop. be maintained. If the do not occur to one who error. for those who are not
23.17
matter of nondeluded has not been subjected [yet] confused;
methods of thinking is to perversions.
not solved, deluded
methods of thinking will
be maintained.
The errors of what is If we do not wish to Perversions do not Error does not develop confusions do not occur
presently erring do not dissolve the deluded occur to one who is In one in whom error is for those who are being
develop. Consider for ideas, these deluded being subjected to arising. In whom does confused. For whom do
yourself whose errors ideas may be perversions. Reflect on error develop? Examine confusions occur?
come about. maintained. If we your own! To whom will this on your own ! Examine this by
reflect upon our own the perversions occur? yourself!
23.18
situation even a little,
how is it possible for
deluded methods of
thinking to be
maintained?

How will whatever is How is it possible for How could there be If error is not arisen, If confusions are not
non-arising be called things and phenomena non-arisen perversions? How could it come to born, how can they
errors? Where error is that have not yet been When perversions are exist? If error has not exist? If confusions are
unborn, where has error born to continue not born, whence can arisen, How could one not born, where can
gone? existing in the world there be a person who be in error? there be someone who
further, even nominally? is subjected to has confusion?
23.19
If deluded ideas have perversions?
not yet been born, how
is it possible for
deluded ideas to depart
actually?

A being is “not born The subjective has not An existent does not Since an entity does not Things are not born
23.20 from itself, not born been born as existence, arise from itself, nor arise from itself, Nor from themselves, not

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 135
from another, nor from and the objective has does it arise from from another, Nor from born from others. If
both itself and not been born at all. another, nor both itself another and from itself, they are also not from
another.” Where has Both the subjective and and other. If so, whence How could one be in self and others, where
error gone? the objective do not can there be a person error. can there be someone
exist anywhere, and so who is subject to who has confusion?
where is it possible for perversions?
deluded thinking to
depart at all?
If the self, purity, When the soul, natural If either the self, the If the self and the pure, If self and purity and
permanence, and brightness, or comfort pleasant, the The permanent and the permanence and
happiness occur, the is recognized, Soul, permanent, or the blissful existed, The happiness were
self, purity, natural brightness, or happy is evident, then self, the pure, the existent, self and purity
permanence, and comfort is never a neither the self, the permanent, And the and permanence and
23.21
happiness are not deluded idea at all. pleasant, the blissful would not be happiness would not be
errors. permanent, nor the deceptive. confusions.
happy constitutes a
perversion.

If the self, purity, When it is recognized, If neither the self, the If the self and the pure, If self and purity and
permanence, and the soul is pure and that pleasant, the The permanent and the permanence and
happiness do not occur, which is innate is permanent, nor the blissful did not exist, happiness were non-
neither the non-self, brilliant. [The seriously happy is not evident, The nonself, the impure, existent, selflessness,
impurity, painful facts that] the then neither the non- the permanent, And impurity,
23.22
impermanence, or soul is impure and that self, the unpleasant, the suffering would not impermanence and
suffering occur. which is innate is never impermanent, nor the exist. anguish would not exist.
brilliant can never be suffering would also be
recognized at all. evident.

Thus from the cessation When ignorance is not Thus, with the cessation Thus, through the Thus by stopping
of errors, ignorance is recognized and of perversions, cessation of error confusion, ignorance
stopped. Where [ignorance] has been ignorance ceases. When ignorance ceases. When will stop. If ignorance is
ignorance has ceased, concealed, the deluded ignorance has ceased, ignorance ceases The stopped, impulsive acts
disposition, etc., is thinking method has the dispositions, etc. compounded etc. will stop.
stopped. manifested itself come to cease. phenomena, etc„ cease.
23.23
already here and now.
[Instances of]
ignorance, destruction,
and everything other
than real action can be
destroyed.
23.24 If any beings are defiled If the world relies upon If, indeed, certain If someone's If the afflictions of

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 136
by their own nature, subjective existence, defilements of defilements Existed some existed by their
whose (defilements] are even our pain is also someone have come to through his essence, own nature, how could
they? How would they some kind of existence, be on the basis of self- How could they be they be let go of? Who
be called abandoned? and it seems that the nature, how could they relinquished? Who can let go of what exists
Who will abandon self- universe, as a kind of be relinquished? Who could relinquish the by nature?
nature? receptacle, might exist ever could relinquish existent?
somewhere. Even if it is self-nature?
only nominally, it is not
true that such a
situation will be
promoted, or that
subjective existence will
be promoted further
even in the future.

If not any beings are When worlds that are If, indeed, certain If someone's If the afflictions of
defiled by their own different from this defilements of defilements Did not some did not exist by
nature, whose world are thought of, it someone have not come exist through his their own nature, how
[defilements] are they? may be possible that to be on the basis of essence, How could could they be let go of?
How would they be pain can exist, and the self-nature, how could they be relinquished? Who can let go of what
called abandoned? Who world that is similar to a they be relinquished? Who could relinquish does not exist?
will abandon what does receptacle seems to Who ever could the nonexistent?
23.25 not really exist? exist somewhere really. relinquish non-
However, even it is only existence? '
nominally, it is
impossible for such
strange ideas to be
promoted further, or
for the unreal world to
be promoted further.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 137
Chapter 24

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Investigation of the
Examination of the Examination of the Examination of the four Emptiness and the
24 Analysis of Noble Truth Ennobling Truths
supreme Truth Noble Truths Noble Truths Four Noble Truths
(Awakening)
If all this is open, there f the balanced state is If all this is empty, then If all of this is empty, “If all were empty, "If all were empty of
is neither arising nor the total situation of there exists no uprising Neither arising nor nothing could come essence, then
dissolution. The non- the world, the fact of and ceasing. These ceasing, Then for you, it about or perish. It nothing could arise
existence of the four appearance does not imply the non-existence follows that The Four would follow for you or dissolve. It would
noble truths follows for exist really, and the fact of the four noble truths. Noble Truths do not that the four ennobling follow that even the
you. of disappearance does exist. truths could not exist. Four Noble Truths
24.1 not exist really. But if could not exist.
we dare say that there
are not the four aspects
of the Supreme Truth,
such an insistence is too
attached.

Knowledge, The content of our In the absence of the f the Four Noble Truths “Since the four "If the Four Noble
abandonment, practice, recognition, four noble truths, do not exist, Then ennobling truths would Truths did not exist,
and realization do not abandonment, and the understanding, knowledge, not exist, then true
take place by the non- sense functions that are relinquishing, abandonment, understanding, letting knowledge,
existence of the four the basis of sense cultivation, and Meditation and go, cultivating and renunciation of the
24.2 noble truths. perceptions, These realization will not be manifestation Will be realizing would no world, spiritual
could never manifest appropriate. completely impossible. longer be valid. progress, and
themselves if not for enlightenment
the existence of the would be impossible.
four supreme truths.

With that non- If we deny the supreme In the absence of this If these things do not “Since they would not "If knowledge,
existence, the four truths, it is impossible [fourfold activity}, the exist, The four fruits will exist, the four fruits renunciation,
noble fruits do not for us to recognize the four noble fruits would not arise. Without the would also not exist. If spiritual progress,
occur. Where the fruit is four supreme results. not be evident. In the four fruits, there will be the fruits did not exist, and enlightenment
24.3 non-existent, the stage When there is no result, absence of the fruits, no attainers of the there could be no did not exist, then
in which the fruits are it is impossible for us to neither those who· have fruits. Nor will there be abiding in the fruits. the four fruits
enjoyed and those who maintain the stability of attained the fruits nor the faithful. Experiencing them [stages of
have arrived at the goal result, and so it is those who have reached would also not exist. advancement along
do not exist. impossible to really the way [to such the Noble Eightfold

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 138
arrive at the result. attainment] exist. Path] 2 would not
exist; and if the fruits
did not exist, then
there would be no
attaining of the
fruits and thus no
advancement toward
Nirvana.
If the above eight kinds If the Buddhist Order If the eight types of If so, the spiritual 4. “If those eight beings "If those eight things
of persons or human does not really exist, individuals do not exist, community will not did not exist, the [mentioned in verses
beings do not exist, the the eight kinds of there will be no exist. N or will the eight Community would not 2 and 3] did not exist,
Buddhist community Buddhists can never congregation. From the kin ds of person. If the exist. Since there would then there could be
does not exist. From the really exist. If we do not non-existence of the Four Noble Truths do be no ennobling truths, no Buddhist
24.4 non-existence of the get rid of the idea that noble truths, the true not exist, There will be the sublime Dharma community (Sangha);
Noble Truths, the true there is nothing in the doctrine would also not no true Dharma. could also not exist. and without the Four
Teaching does not supreme truth, even the be evident. Noble Truths [verse
occur. real universe can never 1], there could be no
be recognized at all. true teaching
(Dharma).
Where the Teaching and If it is true that the When the doctrine and If there is no doctrine “If the Community and "If the Sangha and
the Buddhist universe is nothing, the congregation are and spiritual the Dharma did not the Dharma did not
community do not exist, then such a situation non-existent, how can community, How can exist, how could Buddha exist, then how could
how will the Buddha exists really in the there be an enlightened there be a Buddha? If exist? When you talk of the Buddha exist?
exist? Thus speaking, Buddhist Order, so how one? emptiness is conceived emptiness, the three The [Madhyamaka]
the three jewels are is it possible for the in this way, The three Jewels are maligned. doctrine of
denied by you. people who get the jewels are contradicted. emptiness destroys
Truth to exist at all, the Three Jewels [of
24.5
even in the future? Even Buddhism – the
though the three Buddha, the Dharma,
supreme values are and the Sangha].
precious, you [who do
not believe in
Buddhism] refuse even
to talk about them.

Openness, good or bad The balanced state Speaking in this manner Hence you assert that “The existence of "Thus, the doctrine
results, the Teaching, (Siinyata), the secular about emptiness, you there are no real fruits. actions and fruits, what of emptiness
and all worldly everyday world, that which is contradict the three And no Dharma. The is not Dharma and what negates the
24.6 activities are denied by against the rule of the jewels, as well as the Dharma itself And the is Dharma, the existence of actions,
you. universe, and even the reality of the fruits, conventional truth Will conventions of the of the four fruits, of
rule of the universe both good and bad, and be contradicted. world: all these too are the Dharma, and also

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 139
itself, And furthermore, all such worldly maligned.” of the things taken
all secular work, and convention$. for granted in the
improper conduct—you ordinary and
who do not believe in everyday thought of
Buddhism refuse even the unenlightened."
to talk of them.

We reply that here you In such a situation, We say that you do not We say that this An explanation for that: Your understanding
have not experienced although usual comprehend the understanding of yours since you do not of our teaching on
the purpose in conversations are done purpose of emptiness. Of emptiness and the understand the need emptiness is
openness, and thus the in a stable condition, As such, you are purpose of emptiness for emptiness, defective and, by
use of openness is you do not want to tormented by And of the significance emptiness, and the failing to understand
severed from openness know the reason why emptiness and the of emptiness is point of emptiness, it, you are in danger
by you. those conversations are meaning of emptiness. incorrect. As a therefore in that way of losing the truth,
24.7
done so peacefully. You consequence you are you malign. which will cause you
are completely harmed by it. suffering.
overwhelmed by the
balanced situation
itself, and by the actual
importance of the
balanced state.

The instruction of the ..T he situation in which The teaching of the The Buddha's teaching The Dharma taught by n the Dharma taught
teachings of the we have experienced doctrine by the of the Dharma Is based Buddhas perfectly reliesby the buddhas,
buddhas are based on sufficiently the two Buddhas is based upon on two truths: A truth on two truths: the there is a distinction
two truths: the truth ofTruths is the teaching of two truths: truth of worldly convention ambiguous truths of the between two levels
common sense the rule of the universe relating to worldly And an uItimate truth. world and the truths of of truth: (1) the
conventions about the by the teachers who convention and truth in the sublime meaning. conventional and
24.8
world and truth in the have gotten the Truth. terms of ultimate fruit. confused "truth" of
higher sense of the The true guidance in the ordinary
word. world is just the Truth, consciousness and
and that is just the (2) the "true truth"
Truth in the world of revealed to
action. superconsciousness.
Those who do not Those who cannot Those who do not Those who do not Those who do not If you don't
understand the experience really that understand the understand The understand the division understand the two-
distinction between the there are two kinds of distinction between distinction drawn into two truths, cannot truth distinction,
24.9 two truths do not Truth, which are these two truths do not between these two understand the then you cannot
understand the dimensionally different understand the truths Do not profound reality of the understand the
profound reality in the but which exist profound truth understand The Buddha’s teaching. profound teaching of
teaching of the Buddha. together, similarly to embodied in the Buddha's profound the Buddha.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 140
[inhalation and Buddha's message. truth.
exhalation in]
breathing.-.are criticized
by Gautama Buddha as
those who cannot grasp
reality as something
profound.

Higher truth is not When action is Without relying upon Without a foundation in Without relying on Understanding
taught independently performed in a hopeless convention, the the conventional truth, conventions, the conventional "truth"
of common practice. condition, it is difficult ultimate fruit is not The significance of the sublime meaning is a prerequisite to
Liberation is not to notice the world of taught. Without ultimate cannot be cannot be taught. grasping ultimate
24.10 accomplished by the action. When the world understanding the taught. Without Without understanding truth; and without an
unattainable higher of action has not yet ultimate fruit, freedom understanding the the sublime meaning, understanding of
truth. arrived, the solitary and is not attained. significance of the one will not attain ultimate truth, you
serene state does not ultimate, Liberation is nirvana. cannot attain
yet occur. not achieved. Nirvana.

Openness wrongly When wrong ideas are A wrongly perceived By a misperception of If their view of By failing to
conceived destroys the denied, the balanced emptiness ruins a emptiness A person of emptiness is wrong, understand
dimly witted. It is like a state does not seem to person of meager little intelligence is those of little emptiness, those of
snake grasped by the be special, and it seems intelligence. It is like a destroyed. Like a snake intelligence will be hurt. little intelligence can
head or a garbled to be very common. In snake that is wrongly incorrectly seized Or Like handling a snake in be destroyed, like
incantation. such a situation, that grasped or knowledge like a spell incorrectly the wrong way, or someone grabbing a
24.11
which approaches us that is wrongly cast. casting a spell in the snake by the head or
creeping [wickedly] is cultivated. wrong way. casting a spell
wrong judgment, and it improperly.
is also wrong
preparation.

And hence the Sage’s In such a situation we Thus, the Sage's (the For that reason - that Therefore, knowing Thus, realizing how
thought was turned should express Buddha's) thought the Dharma is Deep and how difficult it is for the few are capable of
against causing the everything positively, recoiled from teaching difficult to understand weak to understand the learning the deep
Truth to be taught. The and such teachings the doctrine having and to learn - The depths of this Dharma, truths of the
purpose of the Teaching were taught by reflected upon the Buddha's mind the heart of the Muni Dharma, the Buddha
24.12 is difficult to fathom for Gautama Buddha. [But difficulty of despaired of Being able strongly turned away was reluctant to
the lazy. in my case] my idea understanding the to teach it. from teaching the teach it [to the
about the universe has doctrine by people of Dharma. many].
become firm already as meager intelligence.
my own personal
interpretation, so that

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 141
which is vague and
difficult to be clarified is
maintained in its
vagueness.

But what objection to The tendency to make Furthermore, if you You have presented Since [those] erroneous Your attempted
openness is made by our mind cautious is were generate any fallacious refutations consequences do not refutation of our
the twelve-fold causal included in the balanced obsession with regard That are no' relevant to apply to emptiness, teaching on
chain of becoming? The state, and such to emptiness, the emptiness. Your whatever rejections you emptiness is off-
condemnation is not cautiousness makes us accompanying error is confusion about make of emptiness do target. Your
ours. It does not apply cautious toward not ours. That emptiness Does not be not apply to me. criticisms to not
in what is open. miscellaneous [obsession] is not long to me. apply. Our
24.13
existences. An attitude appropriate in the_ understanding of
of worry about censure context of the empty. emptiness is quite
is not adequate for us, different from yours.
and such an attitude can
never manifest itself in
the balanced state at
all.
Because openness When all things and Everything is pertinent For him to whom Those for whom A correct
works, therefore phenomena are for whom emptiness is emptiness is clear, emptiness is possible, understanding of
everything works. If governed by reality, proper: Everything is Everything be comes for them everything is emptiness makes
openness does not even the solitary serene not pertinent for whom clear. For bim to whom possible. Those for everything clear. For
work, then everything state is also governed the empty is not proper. emptiness is not clear, whom emptiness is not those with a
24.14 does not work. by reality. When every Nothing becomes clear. possible, for them defective
thing is not governed by everything is not understanding of
reality, the solitary and possible. emptiness, nothing
serene state is not works out.
governed by reality.

You have projected your You [who do not believe You, attributing your When you foist on us All You are transferring You are attributing
errors on us. You are in Buddhism] are just own errors to us, are of your errors You are your own mistakes onto your own
like one who mounts a producing vices, [such like one who has like a man who has me. This is like misunderstandings
horse forgetting the as] the personal soul, or mounted his horse and mounted his horse And mounting a horse but to us. That's like
saddle. the objective Soul, and confused about it. has forgotten that very forgetting about the someone who
24.15 you are producing that horse. horse itself. mounts a horse and
which you can plead are then forgets that he
the things and is mounted.
phenomena of the
earth. You are still
continuing a

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 142
thoughtless attitude,
like riding a horse as if
you think that you are
sitting on a dog.

If you consider that the If you have departed If you perceive the If you perceive the If you view all things as If you view all
existence of beings is from subjective existence of the existence of all things In existing from their own existing things as
from self-nature, you existence you will find existents in terms of terms of their essence, nature, then you would having essences,
see beings existing reality in various self-nature, then you Then this perception of view all things as not then you must view
without cause or existences. You will look will also perceive these all things Will be having causes and all things as having
24.16 conditions. precisely upon the existents as n on causal without the perception conditions. no causes and no
situation of reality, conditions. of causes and conditions.
which actually exists as conditions.
various existences, as
just the true situation.

You deny effect, cause, Relying just upon doing You will also contradict Effects and causes And Cause and effect itself, [If essentialism is
agent, action, and real action, we just [the notions of] effect, agent and action And agents, tools and acts, true,] then there can
activity as well as realize the cause of cause , agent, conditions and arising production and be no causes, no
arising, cessation, and action, and both the performance of action, and ceasing And effects cessation, the effects effects, no agents,
the fruit [of action}. doing of an act and the activity, arising, ceasing, will be rendered too would be no actions, no
cause of action produce as well as fruit. impossible. undermined. conditions, no
the real act itself. But arising, no cessation,
24.17 you [who do not believe and no consequences
in Buddhism] of action.
completely refuse the
phenomena in front of
your eyes—self-
regulation, result, and
so forth.

What is interdependent I am teaching you that We state that whatever Whatever is Whatever is Whatever emerges
origination, that is such very clear i s dependent arising, dependently co-arisen contingently related, out of the process of
called openness by us. It phenomena produce that is emptiness. That That is explained to be that is explained as interdependent
[openness] makes use the various balanced is dependent upon emptiness. That, being a emptiness. That is arising, we call
of convention and is the states and various convention . That itself dependent designation, contingently emptiness. Speaking
24.18
practice of the middle reality. Such is the middle path. Is itself the middle way. configured; it is the of interdependent
way. information from reality central path. arising as emptiness
is the function of our is a standard practice
sense perception, and of those who follow
what is perceived is just the middle way

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 143
the Middle Way. (Madhyamaka).

Not any event not When we are looking at A thing that is not Something that is not Because there are no Since there are no
interdependently the total phenomena dependently arisen is dependently arisen, things at all, which are things that are not
originated occurs, that manifest in front of not evident. For that Such a thing does not not contingently interdependently
Indeed, not any event us clearly on the basis reason, a thing that is exist. Therefore a emergent, therefore, originated, it follows
that is not open occurs. of doubt, it is absolutely non-empty is indeed not nonempty thing Does there are no things at that there are no
impossible for us to evident. not exist. all, which are not things that are not
recognize the universe empty. empty [of essence].
at all. Just because of
24.19 such complicated
conditions, it is difficult
for us to find the
balanced state, and so
there is no possibility
for the rule of the
universe to be
recognized at all.

If all this is not open, When unbalanced If all this is non-empty, If all this were If all were not empty, If all things were not
arising and dissolution situations pervade there exists no uprising nonempty, as in your nothing could come empty [of essence],
do not exist. For you, throughout the whole and ceasing. These view, There would be no about or perish. It then (contrary to
the non-existence of world, it is completely imply the non-existence arising and ceasing. would follow for you your view) nothing
the four noble truths impossible for any of the four noble truths. Then the Four Noble that the four ennobling could arise or
follows. creations to really exist Truths Would become truths could not exist. dissolve. It is actually
in their original state, nonexistent. your view that rules
and even the real out the existence of
24.20 existence of death can the Four Noble
never be recognized at Truths!
all. But [to believe in]
the idea that the four
supreme truths do not
really exist is [to be]
much too attached to
one’s own opinion.

How will there be When it is difficult for How can there be If it is not dependently If things were not If all things were not
suffering that is not us to look at only the suffering that is not arisen, How could contingently emergent, interdependently
24.21 interdependently total phenomena, how dependently arisen? suffering come to be? how could anguish originated, then
originated? Suffering is is it possible for what is Suffering has, indeed Suffering has been exist? Impermanent there could be no
said to be impermanent. called pain to exist even been described as taught to be things are taught to be suffering. Suffering

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 144
Indeed, it does not in the future? Because impermanent. As such, impermanent, And so anguish; in their very is impermanent and
occur in what is that which is wrong it is not evident in terms cannot come from its own nature they do not cannot exist in
imagined to have self- among [what we think of self-nature. own essence. exist. something that has a
nature. of as] facts is discussed self-nature
wrongly as pain, it is [substantial
impossible for us to essence].
recognize pain as
something different
from the facts that are
discussed, and it is
impossible for us to
recognize the true fact
of our subjective ideas.

Again, why will what is Subjective existence How can that which is If something comes If it did exist from its Something with a
presently existing as a exists already in the evident in terms of self- from its own essence, own nature, why would self-nature cannot
consequence of self- mind as what has been nature rise again? How could it ever be it have an origin? originate. Therefore,
nature rise again? recognized, so it is Therefore, for one who arisen? It follows that if Therefore, for those if you deny
Therefore, from the impossible for contradicts emptiness, one denies emptiness who undermine emptiness, there can
denial of openness, something to appear there exists no The re can be no arising emptiness, it can have be no arising.
there is the non- again even in the [conception of] arising. (of suffering). no origin.
24.22
existence of arising. future. In such a
situation the
aggregates do not exist
really, and even the
balanced state is erased
completely.

The cessation of Self-regulation can The cessation of If suffering had an If anguish existed by its Something with a
suffering existing by never be found by suffering that exists in essence, Its cessation own nature, there could self-nature cannot
means of self-nature relying upon ideas that terms of self-nature is would not exist. So if an be no cessation. originate. Therefore,
does not occur. have been produced in not evident. You essence is posited, One Because its own nature if you deny
Cessation by the mind, which is just contradict cessation by denies cessation. would be totally emptiness, there can
contradictions in self- real suffering. The adhering to a notion of present, cessation too be no arising.
24.23 nature is denied by you. subjective idea self-nature. would be undermined.
produces various kinds
of self-contradictions,
therefore you [who do
not believe in
Buddhism] strongly
deny [the value of] self-

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 145
regulation.

In what is conceived to If our subjective When self-nature If the path had an If the path existed by If the Noble
be existing by self- thoughts seem to be exists, the cultivation of essence, CuItivation its own nature, Eightfold Path had a
nature, practice of the real, the real existence the path is not would not be cultivation would not be self-nature, then it
path does not take of morals will not appropriate. And if the appropriate. If this path appropriate. If the path could not be
place. But were this manifest. When morals path were to be is indeed cuItivated, It is to be cultivated, your followed. Since the
24.24
path caused to exist by exist really here and cultivated, then no self- cannot have an essence. own nature cannot Path is followed, it
you, what is imagined to now, the concrete facts nature associated with exist. cannot have a self-
be self- nature does not can never be recognized it [i.e., the path] would nature.
occur. as our thoughts. be evident.

If suffering, arising, and When pain is seen as a When suffering as well If suffering, arising, and When anguish, origins If suffering, arising,
cessation does not disorderly accumulation as its arising and Ceasing are and cessation cannot and cessation did not
occur, which path will of things and ceasing are not evident, nonexistent, By what exist, what ceasing of exist, then there
result in the cessation phenomena, it is through the cessation path could one seek To anguish could one seek could be no path
of suffering? impossible for self- of suffering where will obtain the cessation of to attain by the path? leading to the
regulation to be the path lead to? suffering? cessation of
24.25 recognized at all. When suffering.
morality does not have
any relation with pain or
self-regulation, morality
can never be grasped as
a concrete entity at all.

There is no thesis by Because of subjective If non-understanding is If nonunderstanding If non-understanding If suffering, arising,


means of self-nature. thinking, we lack the due to self-nature, how comes to be Through its existed by its very own and cessation did not
How is there a thesis or ability to regulate can one come to essence, How will nature, how could one exist, then there
proposition about it if things and phenomena possess understanding understanding arise? ever understand? could be no path
self-nature is never well; so how is it subsequently. Is it not Isn't essence stable? Doesn’t it abides by leading to the
assuredly established? possible for anything to the case that self- nature? cessation of
exist in the world nature is fixed? suffering.
24.26
originally? When the
ability to know things
well does not work,
then stubborn sitting
still will continue
further.

Practice in the intuitive When we give up As in the case of In the same way, the In the same way, your For the same reason,
24.27 perception of letting go utilizing our intuitive understanding, this [i.e., activities of letting go, realizing, renunciation,

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 146
and thus possession of ability, what exists in the explanation in Relinquishing, realizing, cultivating and the four realization, following
a thesis and also the the world are just the terms of self-nature] is and meditating And the fruits too are as the Path, and the
four noble fruits do not things and phenomena not proper in relation to four fruits Would not be impossible as four fruits [stages of
occur for you. in front of us. The four the activities of possible. understanding. attainment] would
kinds of practical relinquishing, realizing also be impossible.
processes and their as well as cultivating.
effects are never the And so would the four
same as simple fruits be [improper].
knowledge.

Again, how is which fruit Relying upon subjective How could it be possible For an essentialist, How can any fruits, For the same reason,
attained by means of ideas, what is difficult for a person, who Since the fruits through which totally hold their renunciation,
self-nature? Self-nature to grasp is just result, so upholds a theory of self- their essence Are own nature and by their realization, following
would be able to what is result after all? nature, to realize a fruit already unrealized, In w own nature are the Path, and the
encompass and Something that has not that has already been hat way could one unattained, be four fruits [stages of
completely grasp it. been grasped [by our realized through self- attain them? attained? attainment] would
24.28
intellectual ability] nature? also be impossible.
seems to be result, and
so result may be
something difficult to
grasp.

Where the fruits do not If there were no real In the absence of the Without the fruits, If the fruits did not If the four fruits did
exist, the stage in whichresult that exists, it fruits, there are neither there are no attainers exist, there could be no not exist, then they
the fruits are enjoyed would also be those who have of the fruits, Or abiding in the fruits. could not be attained
and those who have impossible for the four attained the fruits nor enterers. From this it Experiencing them or experienced.
arrived at a goal do not kinds of progressive those who have reached follows that The eight would also not exist. If Without the fruits,
exist. If the eight kindsprocesses recognized by the way [to such kinds of persons do not those eight beings did and without
of persons or human Hinayana Buddhism to attainment]. If the eight exist. If these don't not exist, the attainers and
24.29 beings do not exist, the really exist at all. If the types of individuals do exist, there is no Community would not experiencers thereof,
Buddhist community Buddhist Sangha did not exists, there will be spiritual community. exist. there could be no
does not exist. not exist, then it would no congregation. Sangha (Buddhist
be completely community).
impossible for eight
kinds of members of
the Sangha to really
exist.
From the non-existence Without putting aside from the non-existence From the nonexistence Since there would be no Without the Four
of the noble truths, the the idea that there is no of the noble truths, the of the Noble Truths ennobling truths, the Noble Truths, there
24.30 true Teaching does not method to research the true doctrine would Would follow the sublime Dharma could would be no Dharma.
occur. Where the Truth, it is completely also not be evident. In nonexistence of the also not exist. If the If the Sangha and the

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 147
Teaching and the impossible for us to the absence of the true doctrine. If there is Community and the Dharma did not exist,
Buddhist community do look at the real universe doctrine and the no doctrine and no Dharma did not exist, then how could the
not exist, how will the at all. If the rule of the congregation, how can spiritual community, how could Buddha Buddha exist?
Buddha exist? universe were not real, there be ari enlightened How could a Buddha exist?
and the Buddhist one? arise?
Organization were not
real, how could it be
possible for a person
who has gotten the
Truth to really exist
even in the future?

It follows for you that As long as perfect Your [conception of the) For you, it would folio It would also follow that The view that you
the Buddha is wisdom is not enlightened one implies w that a Buddha Arises your Buddha does not [the critic of
independent of sufficiently clear, even an independent independent of depend on awakening. Madhyamaka] have
enlightenment. And it one who is thought of enlightenment. Also, enlightenment. And for It would also follow that expounded implies
follows for you that as a person who arrived your [conception of] you, enlightenment your awakening does that the Buddha
enlightenment is at the Truth seems to enlightenment implies would arise not depend on Buddha. arises independently
independent of the be strongly attached to an independent Independent of a of enlightenment
24.31 Buddha. his thoughts. As long as ·enlightened one. Buddha. and also that
it is not clear what kind enlightenment arises
of person one who has independently of the
grasped the Truth is, Buddha.
the Truth, which you
conceive of, seems to be
too strongly attached.

Whoever is not a Because of the bad Whosoever is by self- For you, one who For you, someone who For you, someone
buddha by means of effect of subjective nature un-enlightened, through his essence by his very nature is not who by nature [i.e.,
self-nature, he is ideas, people who are even though he were to Was unenlightened, . Buddha could not attain by essence] is not
striving after not so excellent in contend with Even by practicing the awakening however enlightened can
enlightenment. For you, consideration are much enlightenment, would path to enlightenment much he strove in the never attain
he will not attain too busy thinking of not attain Could not achieve practice of awakening enlightenment, no
24.32 enlightenment in the miscellaneous enlightenment through enlightenment. for the sake of matter how
practices of problems. When the a career off a awakening. diligently he might
bodhisattvas. practice of Buddhism is Bodhisattva. strive to follow the
not practical, it may be [Noble Eightfold]
very rare for them to Path.
meet reality actually.

24.33 Not anyone at all will do Both the rule of the No one will, indeed, do Moreover, one could No one would ever do If your view were

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 148
good or bad deeds. universe and that which good or bad. What never perform Right or what is Dharma and correct,] then no one
Indeed, self-nature is is against the rule can could the non-empty wrong actions. If this what is not Dharma. could ever do either
not made by what is to never be produced by do? For, self-nature were all nonempty what What can that which is right or wrong as
be made of what is not intentional effort. does not perform. could one do? That with not empty do? Inherent defined in the
open. Action that lacks the an essence cannot be nature is inactive. Dharma. What can
balanced state can produced. that which is not
never exist in the world empty of essence
at all because subjective do? Essence is
existence [which is unchanging and thus
thought in the brain] inactive.
can never be action
itself at all.

Indeed, for you the fruit When what follows the As for you, the fruit For you, from neither Even without Dharma Since, for you, the
occurs without good rule of the universe and would be evident even right nor wrong actions and not-Dharma, you four fruits are
and bad deeds. But for what is against the rule without good or bad. Would the fruit arise. If would have the fruits. essences, they
you the fruit does not both cannot be found in This means that for you the fruit arose from You would not have the cannot arise from
occur without being your minds [who do not a fruit occasioned by right or wrong actions, fruits which have arisen right or wrong
caused by good or bad believe in Buddhism], good and bad would not According to you, it from the causes of actions; and if they
deeds. . the concept of result be evident. wouldn't exist. Dharma and not- did arise from right
emerges without fail. In Dharma. or wrong actions,
the real world, where then they would not
24.34 what follows the rule of exist [because, in
the universe and what is essentialism, arising
against the rule are is unreal].
combined into one, it
may be impossible even
for you [who do not
believe in Buddhism] to
affirm the idea of result
[in real situations].

If the fruit occurs for If the real situations of If, on the contrary, a If, for you, a fruit arose If you have the fruits If, however, you claim
you without being both the rule of the fruit occasioned by Prom right or wrong which have arisen from that the four fruits
caused by good or bad universe and what is good or bad is evident actions, Then, having the causes of Dharma can arise from right
deeds, how is the fruit against the rule are to you, how can you arisen from right or and not-Dharma, why or wrong actions and
24.35 produced by good or seen separately, it will maintain the fruit that wrong actions, How are the fruits which still exist, then (on
bad deeds not open? become possible for has arisen from good or could that fruit be have arisen from the your assumptions)
what is called result to bad to be [at the same nonempty? Dharma and not- the fruits cannot be
be recognized in either time] non-empty? Dharma not empty? empty of essence
the rule of the universe [because, in

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 149
or in what is against the essentialism, only
rule. [But] in the world, essences can exist].
where the rule of the
universe and what is
against the rule ] are
combined into one, it is
impossible for the total
phenomena to be the
unbalanced state or
result.
All worldly everyday You [who do not believe You will contradict all If dependent arising is Whoever undermines In denying that
activities are denied by in Buddhism] deny all the worldly conventions denied, Emptiness itself emptiness which is interdependent
you. That openness is value of secular work, when you contradict the is rejected. This would contingent emergence arising is emptiness
what is and all value of secular emptiness associated contradict All of the also undermines all the and that emptiness is
interdependently life. You [who do not with dependent arising. worldly conventions. conventions of the interdependent
originated is denied by believe in Buddhism] do world. arising, you also
24.36
you. not wish to recognize negate all of the
that the total conventions of
phenomena, which are everyday thought
seen in front of us, are and action.
just the very balanced
diverse phenomena.

From the denial of Even in cases in which For one who contradicts If emptiness itself is If one undermines The denial of
openness, there would an action has not been emptiness there would rejected, No action will emptiness, there would emptiness implies (1)
be nothing to be done, accomplished, it is be nothing that ought be appropriate. There be no actions at all and that there are no
activity would not be a possible for that to be done; activity would be action which actions without an actions [which is
bit commenced, and the unaccomplished action would be un-initiated did not begin, And there author and agents who contrary to the facts
doer would not be to exist as an [abstract] and an agent would be would be agent without do not act. of experience], (2)
doing. idea that can never be non-acting. action. that there are
accomplished at all. An actions without
intention to practice beginning or end
24.37
action may suggest that [which is incredible],
action has not yet been and (3) that there are
accomplished, and so agents without
the balanced state may actions [which is
be placed out of the contradictory since
range of vision. an agent is, by
definition, a
performer of
actions].

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 150
In the self-nature Even when the ability to In a substantialist view, If there is essence, the, If there were inherent In a world of
doctrine, the world, regulate oneself has not the universe will be whole world Will be nature, all beings would essences, everything
void of a state of begun working, there is unborn, non-ceased, unarising, unceasing, be unborn and would be
diversity, will be the possibility for remaining immutable And static. The entire unceasing, would be unchanging, there
unborn, unceasing, and everyone to arrive at and devoid of phenomenal world fixed in place forever, would be no changes
unchanging. the highest state in the variegated states. Would be immutable. separated from the of circumstances
future. Being decorated variety of situations. from time to time,
24.38
by brilliant colors, the and nothing would
fact that everything is either begin or end.
totally in the state of
splendid stability is just
the real situation of the
world.

If what is not open does The fact, that we have If the non-empty [is If it (the world) were If [things] were not If all is empty of
not occur, there is not arrived [at the evident), then reaching not empty, Then action empty, there could be essence [as we
abandonment of all understanding of the up to what has not been would be without no attainment of what claim], then
defilements and action supreme state] yet reached; the act of profit. The act of ending had not been attained, renunciation of all
that is the end of suggests that we have terminating suffering as suffering and no ending of anguish actions and worldly
suffering and the possibility to arrive well as the relinquishing Abandoning misery and and no letting go of all defilements, the
attainment of the at the destination in the of all defilements would defilement would not actions and afflictions. ending of suffering,
unattained. future, and the fact that not be evident. exist. and the attainment
we are in the area of of enlightenment are
24.39 pain is also a kind of all possible.
action. When we can
accept even our severe
pain as the rule of the
universe, it is
completely impossible
for us to find any kind
of unbalanced
situations anywhere at
all.
He who sees A person who can look Whoever perceives Whoever sees He who sees He who sees
interdependent at this world as the dependent arising also dependent arising Also contingent emergence interdependent
origination sees this; clear world of perceives suffering, its sees suffering And its sees anguish and origins arising sees
24.40 suffering, arising and phenomena as they are arising, its ceasing and arising And its cessation and cessation and the suffering, the arising
ceasing, and also the is a person who can look the path [leading to its as well as the path. path itself. and cessation
path. at the world directly. ceasing]. thereof, and the
The philosophy of pain Noble Eightfold

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 151
[idealism], the Path.
philosophy of
accumulation
[materialism], the
philosophy of the
present moment
[philosophy of action],
and the philosophy of
reality [the philosophy
of morality] are also the
same.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 152
Chapter 25

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net

Examination of Investigation of Nirvana


25 Analysis of Nirvana Examination of Nirvana Examination of Nirvana Nirvana
Freedom (Nirvana)
If all this is open, there When the balanced If all this is empty, there If all this is empty, Then If everything were If as empty [of
is neither arising nor state pervades through exists neither arising there is no arising or empty, there would be essence], then there
passing away. Whose the world, the balanced nor ceasing. [As such,] passing away. By the no arising and perishing. is no [real] arising
liberation is state does not have any through the relinquishing or ceasing From the letting go of and no [real]
presupposed either characteristic of relinquishing and. of what Does one wish and ceasing of what dissolving. Through
through abandonment appearance or ceasing of what does nirvana to arise? could one assert what dissolving can
or through cessation? disappearance. If we one expect freedom? nirvana(-ing)? Nirvana arise?
refuse the soft attitude
of abandoning things
25.1
and following
circumstances, or if we
depart from self-
regulation, the chance
to realize the free and
serene state called
Nirvana can never
appear.

If all this is not open, Even when the If all this is non-empty, If all this is nonempty, If everything were not If all is non-empty [of
there is neither arising unbalanced state there exists neither Then there is no arising empty, there would be essence], then there
nor passing away. pervades throughout arising nor ceasing, [As or passing a way. By the no arising and perishing. is no [real] arising
Whose freedom is the world, it is such,] through relinquishing or ceasing From the letting go of and no [real]
presupposed either impossible for the relinquishing and of what Do es one wish and ceasing of what dissolving. Through
through abandonment unbalanced state to ceasing of what does nirvana to arise? could one assert what dissolving can
or cessation? appear newly, or for the one expect freedom? nirvana(-ing)? Nirvana arise?
25.2 unbalanced state to
disappear. If a person
refuses abandonment
completely or departs
from selfregulation, it is
completely impossible
for the free and serene
state to be realized.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 153
What is not abandoned (Nirvana is) not isolated, Unrelinquished, not Unrelinquished, No letting go, no Not abandoned. Not
and not attained, not it is not accumulated as reached, un-annihilated, unattained, attainment, no attained. Not
interrupted and not are things, it is not non-eternal, non-ceased Unannihilated, not annihilation, no annihilated. Not
permanent, not instantaneous, it is not and non-arisen this is permanent, Unarisen, permanence, no permanent. Not
destroyed and not eternal. It is not called freedom. unceased: This is how cessation, no birth: that arisen. Not dissolved.
25.3 produced, this is called concealed, nor has it nirvana is described. is spoken of as nirvana. This is Nirvana.
nirvana. appeared. Such a state
is just the free and
serene state, which
people delight in.

Firstly, nirvana is not an It is not true that Freedom, as a matter of Nirvana is not existent. Nirvana is not a thing. If Nirvana were
existent characterized existence is just the fact, is not existence, It would then have the Then it would follow [phenomenally]
by old age and death. free and serene state for if it were, it would characteristics of age that it would have the existent, it would
Indeed, no being is itself, but the follow that it has the and death. There is no characteristics of aging then be subject to
without old age and characteristic of the characteristics of decay existent entity Without and death. There does aging and death.
death. free and serene state to arid death. Indeed, age and death. not exist any thing that Whatever is
appear and to disappear there is no existence is without aging and [phenomenally]
serves to suggest its without decay and death. existent ages and
25.4
existence. Because if death. dies.
the free and serene
state could not appear
or disappear, the fact
that the free and serene
state really exists would
vanish naturally at once.

If nirvana is an existent, When existence is just Moreover, if freedom If nirvana were existent, If nirvana were a thing, If Nirvana were
nirvana would be Nirvana, the free and were to be existence, nirvana would be nirvana would be a [phenomenally]
conditioned. Not any serene state, it is then freedom would be compounded. A conditioned existent, it would be
unconditioned existent possible that Nirvana conditioned. Yet, an noncompounded phenomenon. There compounded.
occurs anywhere. can exist as the whole existence that is existent Does not exist does not exist any thing Whatever is
external world. Because unconditioned is not anywhere. anywhere that is not a [phenomenally]
25.5
it is impossible for us to evident anywhere. conditioned existent is
recognize any world phenomenon. compounded.
that is different from
the external world,
certainly such a
different world does

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 154
not exist anywhere, and
such existence is as
nothing.

If nirvana is existent, When existence is just Furthermore, if If nirvana were existent, If nirvana were a thing, If Nirvana were
how is it non-grasping? in Nirvana, the free and freedom were to be How could nirvana be how would nirvana not [phenomenally]
For not any non- serene state, what is existence, how can that nondependent? A be dependent? There existent, it would be
grasping nirvana occurs this world that just freedom be nondependent existent does not exists any dependent.
as existent. continues its existence independent, for an Does not exist thing at all that is not Whatever is
like this? What is called independent existence anywhere. dependent. [phenomenally]
the free and serene is certainly not evident? existent is
state might be different dependent.
from something that
25.6
can be grasped by sense
perception. Because [if
Nirvana could be
perceived by the
senses] such an
existence would be
recognized by some
kind of method without
fail.
If nirvana is not Existence is different If freedom is not If nirvana were not If nirvana were not a If Nirvana is not
existent, will nirvana be from the free and existence, will freedom existent, How could it thing, how could it [phenomenally]
non-existent? Where serene state; therefore be non-existence? be appropriate for it to possibly be nothing? existent, does that
there is no existent, it is completely Wherein there is no be nonexistent? Where The one for whom mean that it is a non-
there is no non-existent. impossible for the free existence, therein non- nirvana is not existent, nirvana is not a thing, being? If Nirvana is
and serene state, which existence is not evident. It cannot be a for him it is not nothing. not
is different from nonexistent. [phenomenally]exist
existence, to become ent, it is not
25.7 existence at all. Because necessarily a non-
the free and serene being.
state is not existence, it
is completely
impossible for what is
not existence to
become the object of
recognition at all.

If nirvana is non- If we think that what If freedom is non- If nirvana were not If nirvana were nothing, If Nirvana were a
25.8 existent, how is nirvana does not exist is just the existence, how can existent, How could how could nirvana non-being, how could

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 155
not grasping it free and serene state, freedom be nirvana be possibly be not it be non-dependent?
[existence]? Indeed, no what is the world that is independent? For there nondependent? dependent? There does Whatever is non-
non-grasping non- seen in front of us exists no non-existence Whatever is not exist any nothing dependent is not a
existent occurs. really? Because the free which evidently is nondependent Is not which is not dependent. non-being.
and serene state is not independent. nonexistent.
existence, the fact that
the free and serene
state really exists might
be recognized as
something different
from the world that can
be recognized by sense
perception.

That state of moving Existences, which are Whatever is of the hat which comes and Whatever things come That which comes
restlessly to and fro esteemed as slow or nature of coming and goes Is dependent and and go are dependent and goes is
[samsara] is grasping fast, are both facts that going that occurs changing. That, when it or caused. Not being dependent and
and dependent. But can be perceived by the contingently or is not dependent and dependent and not changing. But
nirvana is taught as senses, and the facts dependently. Freedom changing, Is taught to being caused is taught Nirvana is not
without grasping and are very clear. is, therefore; indicated be nirvana. to be Nirvana. dependent and
25.9 without dependence. [However] what is not as being non-contingent changing.
so clear, and cannot be and independent.
perceived by the senses,
is accepted as Nirvana,
or the free and serene
state.

The Teacher [Buddha] We have many The teacher has spoken The teacher has spoken The teacher taught [it] If Nirvana were
taught the experiences of giving up of relinquishing both of relinquishing to be the letting go of [phenomenally]
abandonment of things or talking about becoming and other Becoming and arising and perishing. existent, it would
becoming and non- things in which we have becoming. Therefore, it dissolution. Therefore, Therefore, it is correct then be subject to
becoming. Therefore, no interest; in such is proper to assume that it makes sense that that nirvana is not a aging and death.
the assertion “nirvana is cases we rely upon freedom is neither nirvana is neither thing or nothing. Whatever is
neither existent nor endurance, [and] such existence nor non- existent nor [phenomenally]
25.10
non-existent” is chances exist almost existence. nonexistent. existent ages and
reasonable. everywhere. Therefore dies.
the opinions that
Nirvana, the free and
serene state, must exist
or not exist are
certainly insistences

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 156
that are much too
attached to fixed
consideration.

If nirvana would be both It is possible to say both If freedom were to be If nirvana were both If nirvana were both a If Nirvana were both
existent and non- that Nirvana does not both existence and non- Existent and thing and nothing, it a [phenomenal]
existent, liberation exist and that it does existence, then release nonexistent, Passing would follow that it existent and a non-
would be both existent exist, so Nirvana has would also be both beyond would, would be a thing and being, liberation
and non-existent. But those two existence and non- impossibly, Be both nothing. That is would both happen
that is not reasonable, characteristics. Because existence. This too is existent and incorrect. and not happen. But
both the ideas of not proper. nonexistent. that is impossible
25.11 nonexistence and of [because it is
existence are available, contradictory].
perfect freedom itself,
which exists on the
basis of Nirvana, is
never restricted by
anything at all.

If nirvana would be both The world that can be If freedom were to be f nirvana were both If nirvana were both a If Nirvana were both
existent and non- perceived by the senses both existence and non- Existent and thing and nothing, a [phenomenal]
existent, nirvana would is not the world of existence, freedom nonexistent, nirvana nirvana would not be existent and a non-
not be non-grasping for Nirvana, because the could not be would not be non- not-dependent, because being, Nirvana would
both are grasping. world that can be independent, for dependent. Since it it would depend on not be non-
perceived by the senses existence and non- would depend on both those two. dependent since
25.12 and the world that existence are, indeed, of these. both existing
cannot be perceived by dependent upon one phenomena and non-
the senses are another. beings are
combined into one dependent [on
world, which is just the whatever causes
real world. them].

How could nirvana be Although it is possible How could freedom be How could nirvana Be How could nirvana be How could Nirvana
both existent and non- for both “to exist” and both existence and non- both existent and both a thing and be both a
existent? Nirvana is “not to exist” to be existence, for freedom nonexistent? nirvana is nothing? Nirvana is [phenomenal]
unconditioned, and affirmed, it is is unconditioned while uncompounded. Both unconditioned; things existent and a non-
25.13 both existent and non- completely impossible existence and non- existents and and nothings are being? Nirvana is
existent are for Nirvana to be both existence are nonexistents are conditioned. uncaused. Both
conditioned. existence and conditioned? compounded. existing phenomena
nonexistence. Because and non-beings are
the world that is caused.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 157
different from the
external world is
Nirvana, [Nirvana] may
be the real world, which
may be a combination
of the world that really
exists and the abstract
world that does not
really exist.

How could nirvana be If there is positively no How could freedom· be How could nirvana Be How could nirvana exist How could Nirvana
both existent and non- existence, what is the both existence both existent and as both a thing and be both a
existent? There is no relation between and .non-existence, for nonexistent? These two nothing? Those two do [phenomenal]
existence of both, as existence and Nirvana? their simultaneous cannot be in the same not exist as one. They existent and a non-
with light and darkness,
When both existence existence in one place is place. Like light and are like light and dark. being? These two
in the same place. and Nirvana do not exist not possible, as in the darkness. cannot occupy the
25.14
and yet occur in one case of light and same location. They
place, it seems to be darkness? are like light and
similar to the situation darkness.
in which light and
darkness combine into
one.
What is clear is the [Nirvana] is neither The proposition that Nirvana is said to be The presentation of Nirvana is neither a
statement “nirvana is what does not exist nor freedom is neither Neither existent nor neither a thing nor [phenomenal]
not existent and not what exists at all, and existence nor non- nonexistent. If the nothing as nirvana will existent nor a non-
non-existent.” It is Nirvana is a kind of existence could be existent and the be established [only] if being. If only we
demonstrated where decoration like established if and when nonexistent were things and nothings are could understand
being and non-being are cosmetics. Nirvana can both existence and non- established, This would established. this!
established as existing. be expressed by saying existence are be established.
25.15 that it does not exist, established.
but at the same time it
can be expressed by
saying that it exists.
Therefore [we can say
that] Nirvana is the real
situation of the real
world.

If nirvana is known by When it becomes clear If freedom as neither If nirvana is Neither If nirvana is neither a If Nirvana is neither a
25.16 neither existent nor that Nirvana is not what existence n or non- existent nor thing nor nothing, by [phenomenal]
non-existent, it can be does not exist, nor what existence is evident, by nonexistent, Then by who could “neither a existent nor a non-

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 158
made clear by whom as exists, [It will become means of what is it whom is it expounded thing nor nothing” be being, who is in a
“neither existent nor clear that] the situation made known as neither "Neither existent nor perceived? position to say so?
non-existent”? of Nirvana, which is existence nor non- nonexistent"?
different from things existence?
that exist and do not
exist, does not develop
or expand at all.

It is not maintained that That there is another It is not assumed that Having passed into After the Bhagavan has Having entered
“the Venerable One condition that has the Blessed One exists nirvana, the Victorious entered nirvana, one Nirvana, the Buddha
exists after death” nor departed from the self- after death. Neither is it Conqueror Is neither cannot perceive [him? does not exist, nor
is it maintained “he regulated condition and assumed that he does said to be existent Nor it?] as “existing,” does he not-exist,
does not exist” or “both deserves to be admired not exist, or both, or said to be nonexistent. likewise as “not nor does he both
or neither.” has never been insisted neither. Neither both nor existing,” nor can one exist and non-exist,
even once. When both neither are said. percieve [him? it?] as nor does he neither
self-regulation and the “both” or “neither”. exist nor not-exist.
25.17
admirable condition do
not exist, a situation in
which there is no self-
regulation but yet is an
admirable condition is
never possible to be
admired at all.

It is not maintained that That a strongly It is not assumed that So, when the victorious Even when the During his lifetime,
“the Venerable One established conviction even a living Blessed one abides, he Is neither Bhagavan is alive, one the Buddha did not
exists while remaining just exists as an One exists. Neither is it said to be existent Nor cannot perceive [him? exist, nor did he not-
in the world” nor is it admirable fact should assumed that he does said to be nonexistent. it?] as “existing,” exist, nor did he both
maintained that “he never be criticized. not exist, or both or Neither both nor likewise as “not exist and not-exist,
does not exist or both When neither a strongly neither. neither are said. existing,” nor can one nor did he neither
25.18 or neither.” established conviction perceive [him? it?] as exist not not-exist.
nor what is admirable “both” or “neither”.
exist, such a poor
condition can never
become the object of
discussion at all.

There is no distinction When it is difficult for The life-process has no There is not the Samsara does not have There is no
whatever between us to find Nirvana in the thing that distinguishes slightest difference the slightest distinction difference at all
25.19 samsara and nirvana. wandering of our daily it from freedom. Between cyclic from Nirvana. Nirvana between Samsara
There is no distinction life, there may be Freedom has nothing existence and nirvana. does not have the and Nirvana! There is

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 159
whatever between inadequacy. If there is that distinguishes it There is not the slightest distinction no difference at all
nirvana and samsara. no Nirvana in the from the life-process. slightest difference from Samsara. between Nirvana and
wandering of our daily Between nirvana and Samsara! [They are
life, there is something cyclic existence. both empty (shunya)
inadequate in our daily of essence.]
life really.

The limit of nirvana is What exists in Nirvana is Whatever is the Whatever is the limit of Whatever is the end of
The limits of Nirvana
that of samsara. The just time, and time extremity of freedom nirvana, That is the limit Nirvana, that is the end
are the same as the
subtlest difference is exists also in the and the extremity of of cyclic existence. of Samsara. There is
limits of Samsara.
not found between the wandering of daily life. the life~ process, There is not even the not even a very subtle
There is not the
25.20 two. Between the two between them not even slightest difference slight distinction
slightest shade of
factors [Nirvana and the a subtle something is between them, Or even between the two.
difference between
wandering of daily life] evident. the subtlest thing. the two. [They are
even the slightest gap both limited by their
cannot be found at all. emptiness (shunyata)
of essence.]
Views, such as When we lose our self- Metaphysical views Views that after Views about who passes Speculating about
permanence, etc., regulation, the idea of relating to the finite, cessation there is a beyond, ends etc. and what lies beyond
finitude, etc., after ending has begun, and etc., to the eternal, etc., limit, etc., And that it is permanence etc. are Nirvana is
death, are associated the idea of eternity has after death are permanent, etc., contingent upon pointless . . . .
25.21 with a past and future begun. Nirvana is an associated with [the Depend upon nirvana, nirvana and later ends
nirvana. end, a vague problems of] freedom the final limit, And the and former ends.
supposition, and a place as well as the posterior prior limit.
for salvation. and prior extremities.

Since all events are In various balanced When all things are Since all existents are In the emptiness of all Since all existing
open, what is infinite? states, or in all things empty, why [speculate empty, What is finite or things what ends are phenomena are
What is finite? What is and phenomena in the on] the finite, the infinite? What is finite there? What non-ends empty [of essence],
infinite and finite and universe, how is it infinite, both the finite and infinite? What is are there? What ends what is finite? What
what is neither infinite possible for anything to and the infinite and neither finite nor and non-ends are there? is infinite? What is
nor finite? be eternal, and how is it neither finite nor the infinite? What of neither are both finite and
possible for anything to infinite? there? infinite? What is
25.22 be limited? How can neither finite nor
something be endless, infinite?
and how can something
have a finish? What is
something not endless
and what is something
having a finish?

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 160
What has gone away? What is the world? What Why [speculate on] the What is identical and Is there this? Is there What is identity, and
What identity? What is another world other identical, the different, what is different? What the other? Is there what is different?
difference? What is than this? What is the eternal, the non- is permanent and what permanence? Is there What is permanent,
permanent and eternity? What is not eternal, both or neither? is impermanent? What impermanence? Is and what is
impermanent or neither eternal? What is is both permanent and there both permanence impermanent? What
25.23 and so forth? something not eternal, impermanent? What is and impermanence? Is is both permanent
and what is something neither? there neither? and impermanent?
eternal? Those two What is neither
might be nothing at all. permanent nor
impermanent?

Liberation is the In every case, it is The Buddha did not The pacification of all Totally pacifying all Liberation is the
cessation of all thought, comfortable and teach the appeasement objectification And the referents and totally cessation of all
the quieting of soothing for us to get of all objects, the pacification of illusion: pacifying fixations is thought, the
phenomena. Not any something, and it is also appeasement of No Dharma was taught peace. The Buddha dissolution of all
doctrine anywhere has a cause of happiness for obsession, and the by the Buddha At any nowhere taught any plurality. The Buddha
been taught to anyone us to expand auspicious as some time, in any place, to dharma to anyone. taught nothing at
25.24
by the Buddha. something. At any thing to some one at any person. any time, in any
place, in any problem, some place. place, to any person.
or about anything,
Gautama Buddha has
never explained the rule
of the universe with
words at all.

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 161
Chapter 26

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net


Analysis of the Twelve- The Twelve-Link
Examination of the Analysis of the Twelve
fold Chain of Examination of the Examination of the Chain of
26 Interdependent
twelve chain of causes
Twelve Causal Factors twelve Links
Links of Becoming
Interdependent
and effects. (Contingency)
Origination Arising
Three dispositions Following a new birth, A person enveloped by Wrapped in the In order to become Out of the mystery
leading to rebirth arevarious inclusive acts ignorance forms such darkness of ignorance, again, those obscured of [I] ignorance,
formed by unexplained are actually performed, dispositions in the One performs the three by ignorance are moved there arise the three
ignorance which moves and a state of chaos threefold ways leading kinds of actions Which into destinies by actions kinds of action
by means of those [avidyd] and a to rebecoming, and as dispositions impel which are impelled [by] (physical, verbal, and
actions. completely vacant through such actions he one To continue to the three kinds of mental), which give
consciousness [vijnana] moves on to his destiny. future existences. formative impulses. rise to [II] the
exist together, then the impulsion to
26.1 three factors are continue existing
combined into one. [through rebirth].
Those three change
their form following the
process of the world,
and the behavior called
practice actually goes
ahead relying upon
action.
Consciousness is When the mental Consciousness, with Having dispositions as Consciousness The disposition to
connected with past function has become disposition as its its conditions, conditioned by continue existing [to
disposition and stable, real action and condition, enters [the Consciousness enters formative impulses be reborn again and
conditioning. Wherein the reliable facts new] life. When transmigration. Once enters into destinies. again] gives rise to
consciousness deeply become two factors, consciousness has consciousness has When consciousness [III] consciousness,
enters, name and form which are related with entered, the psycho- entered transmigration, has entered, name and from which there
[mind/body] is infused. the act of going. In this physical personality is Name and form come to form develop. emerge [IV] mind and
26.2
situation, and in the infused. be. body.
stable condition of the
mental function, real
things and forms [nama-
riipa], which are a
combination of name
and substance, are

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 162
infused into the real
universe.
Where name and form In this infused situation, When the psycho- Once name and form When name and form With mind and body,
is infused, six sense- and in the real things physical personality has come to be, The six develop, the six senses come [V] the six
spheres arise. The six and phenomena [nama- been infused, the sense spheres come emerge. In dependence senses . . . , which
senses having arrived, riipa], which are a occurrence of the six into being. Depending upon the six senses, result in [VI] contact
contact comes forth. combination of name spheres (of sense) takes on the six sense impact actually occurs. [with objects of
and real substance, the place. Depending upon spheres, Contact comes sensation] . . . .
six organs and inclusive the. six spheres into being.
26.3 existence are combined proceeds contact.
into one and exist. And
because the six sense
organs [sada-yatana]
have arrived in the real
world already, the
function of contact
[sparsa] begins.
Form and attention are When the eyes are clear Thus, depending upon That is only dependent Just as [it] only arises in From contact, [VII]
dependent on the eye. to things, the structure the eye and material On eye and form and dependence on the eye, feelings [of pleasure
Name and form is of all things and form, and attention too, apprehension. Thus, [visual] form and and pain] come forth.
dependent on phenomena are and depending upon depending on name and attention, so
consciousness coming similarly clear. When the the psycho-physical form, And which consciousness arises in
forth. combination of name personality proceeds produces consciousness dependence on name
26.4
and form [namarupa, or consciousness. and form.
real things and
phenomena) are
similarly clear, the
inclusive recognition
begins to work.
The conjunction of the The situation is one of Whatever is the That which is assembled The gathering of the From feelings, comes
three, which are eye, encounters and contact harmonious from the three-Eye and three: eye and [visual] [VIII] craving [for
consciousness, and among these [matter, concurrence of the form and form and consciousness, more pleasure and
form, is contact. And awareness, and the three factors: material consciousness, Is that is “impact.” From less pain]. From
26.5 from contact, feeling eyes]. Therefore when form, consciousness, contact. From contact impact feeling totally craving, come [IX]
comes forth. contact transcends the and eye, is .contact. Feeling comes to be. arises. grasping and clinging
contact itself, Feeling proceeds from ...
perception [vedana] such contact.
takes place.
Craving is conditioned It is a very fine point Conditioned by feeling Conditioned by feeling Due to the condition of From grasping and
26.6 by feeling, indeed, that perception itself is is craving. Indeed, is craving. Craving arises feeling, there is craving; clinging, [X] he who
craves because of not included among the craving is feeling because of feeling. one craves for what is grasps and clings

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 163
feeling. He is laid holdreliable facts, because directed. The one who When it appears, there felt. When one craves, emerges . . . .
of by grasping a what is truly desirable is craves, grasps on to the is grasping, The four one clings to the four
fourfold craving. not perception [vedana] fourfold spheres of spheres of grasping. aspects of clinging
itself—what is the most grasping. [sense objects, views,
desirable is the objects morals and rules, and
of perception. And the views of self].
mind of desire for
something [trsya] can
be gotten relying upon
the four factors [the
sense organs, contact,
objects of the senses,
and perception].
Where grasping exists, Relying upon When grasping exists, When there is grasping, When there is clinging, He who grasps and
the being who grasps is perception [vedana], becoming on the part of the grasper Comes into the becoming of the clings . . . grasps and
set in motion. Indeed, if existence becomes real, the grasper proceeds. If existence. If he did not clinger fully arises. clings [i.e., strives for
there would be no and perception itself he were to be the non- grasp, Then being freed, When there is no pleasure, for
grasping, he would be works actually. If we do grasper, he would be he would not come into clinging, one is freed; continued existence,
released and there not permit the released, and there existence. there is no [more] etc.] and so arrives
26.7 would be no being [who existence of the world, would be no further becoming. once more at [XI]
grasps]. which is like a becoming. rebirth, from which
receptacle, it is there inevitably
impossible for us to follow aging and
recognize any kind of dying, sorrow and
existence at all. weeping, misery and
grief.
He, the being, is five The five aggregates are The five aggregates This existence is also Becoming is the five He who grasps and
skandhas and from just existence, and constitute this the live aggregates. aggregates; from clings . . . grasps and
being, rebirth is set in departing from becoming. From From existence comes becoming one is born. clings [i.e., strives for
motion, together with existence birth will take becoming proceeds birth, Old age and death Aging, death, torment, pleasure, for
lamentations, place. Aging and death birth, suffering relating and misery and lamentation, pain, continued existence,
afflictions, suffering, [jaramarana] are pain to decay and death, etc., suffering and grief and . etc.] and so arrives
26.8 etc., old age and death. and are just . . once more at [XI]
lamentation. rebirth, from which
there inevitably
follow aging and
dying, sorrow and
weeping, misery and
grief.
Together with despair, Relying upon our Grief, lamentation, Confusion and mental unhappiness, The force that fuels
26.9 all this is set in motion endurance of dejection, and dispair : agitation. All these arise anxiety: these vividly the continuation of

NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika - 6 translations – Compiled by Frederic Lecut, May 2020 Page 164
from birth. Thus is theundesirable conditions, all these proceed from as a consequence of emerge from birth. samsara is the
origin of this entire the real world manifests birth. Such is the birth. Thus this entire Likewise, the entire impulsion to
mass of suffering. its real situation occurrence of this mass of suffering mass of anguish continue existing,
directly, and the real entire mass of Comes into being. emerges. which arises from
world begins its suffering. ignorance.
function. And in such a Therefore, the wise
situation the total world do not strive for
exists in individual continued existence.
concrete situations in The ignorant so
the real world, and in strive, but the wise
the situation in which are not ignorant.
pain and the aggregates
are combined into one.
Hence the ignorant Relying upon those Thus, the ignorant The root of cyclic The root of life is With the cessation of
compose dispositions, situations, the forms dispositions that existence is action. formative impulses. ignorance, the
the roots of samsara. fundamental principles constitute the source of Therefore, the wise one Therefore, the wise do impulsion to
Therefore, the ignorant of the wandering of our the life-process. does not act. Therefore, not form impulses. continue existing will
create while the wise, daily lives prepare Therefore, it is the