46695163-Mulamadhyamakakarikas-and-Vigrahavyavartani-by-Nargarjuna.pdf

7/25/2019 46695163-Mulamadhyamakakarikas-and-Vigrahavyavartani-by-Nargarjuna.pdf

1/234

MulamadhyamakaKarikas

Vigrahavyavartani("Fundamental of the Middle Way""Averting the Arguments")

by Nagarjuna

FROM: Emptiness - A Study in Religious Meaning,by Frederick J. Streng,!as"#ille and !e$ %ork: Abingdon &ress, '()*+

Appendi A / pp. '01-22*

A translation o3 Mulamad"yamaka4arikas by !agar5una, as preser#ed in 6andrakirti7s &rasannapada. 8"eSanskrit tet used 3or t"is translation is 3ound in Mulamad"yamaka4arikas mad"yamikasutra+ de !agariunaa#er la &rasannapada, 6ommentaire de 6andrakirti, 9ouis de 9a all;e &oussin, ed. St &etersbourg, '('1+.

8"e $"ole tet is mainly composed o3 2* c"apters o3 #arying number o3 #erses. Follo$ed by t"e

igra"a#ya#artani.

taly, Marc" 2??(@


2/234

6O!8E!8S :.ntroductory erses@


3/234

and e33ect+ - 2B #erses


4/234

ntroductory erses@. C> salute "im, t"e 3ully-enlig"tened, t"e best o3 speakers,

$"o preac"ed t"e non-ceasing and t"e non-arising,t"e non-anni"ilation and t"e non-permanence,t"e non-identity and t"e non-di33erence,

t"e non-appearance and t"e non-disappearance,t"e dependent arising,t"e appeasement o3 obsessions and t"e auspicious.C

.


5/234

o$ can t"ere be a cause $"ic" is e33ecti#e in t"is situation. N0. Just t"at $"ic" is $it"out an ob5ect o3 sensation is accepted as a real element

8"en i3 t"ere is an element "a#ing no ob5ect o3 sensation, "o$ is it possible to "a#e anob5ect o3 sensation

. N(. I"en no elements "a#e originated,


6/234

N2. Since bot" kinds o3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity displacement+ t is said: C8"e 7goer7 goesC mo#es+ o$ is t"at possible,

I"en $it"out t"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible mo#ement+ no CgoerC is produced


7/234

. N'?. 8"ose $"o "old t"e #ie$ t"at t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+ must 3 t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+, t"en t$o acts o3 going #isible acti#ity displacement+


8/234

N'(. And i3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible mo#ement+ and t"e CgoerC are identical,

8"e 3allacy logically 3ollo$s t"at t"e Cperson actingC kartus+ and t"e action karma+ areidentical.. N2?.

Alternati#ely, i3 t"e CgoerC is di33erent 3rom t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - - real goingprocess+,

8"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible acti#ity displacement+ $ould eist $it"out t"eCgoerC and t"e CgoerC $ould eist $it"out t"e Cact o3 going.C #isible acti#ity displacement+. N2'. !eit"er t"e identity nor t"e essential di33erence is establis"ed sidd"i+ regarding t"e t$o3 t"ese t$o ndeed someone goes some$"ere.

. N21.

8"e CgoerC does not go to t"at


9/234

Are t"e si sense 3aculties.8"e area o3 t"eir concern is t"at $"ic" is seen


10/234

9ike$ise t"e basic cause o3 #isible 3orm does not appear $it"out t"e #isible 3orm.. N2. >3 t"e #isible 3orm eisted apart 3rom its basic cause, it $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at #isible3orm is $it"out cause

/ut t"ere is not"ing any$"ere rreductible ElementsC d"atus+ t"e elements+ = 0#erses = 8"e irreducible elements de3ined by t"eir basic c"aracteristics@. N'. Space does not eist at all be3ore t"e de3ining c"aracteristic o3 space akasalaksana+.

>3 it $ould eist be3ore t"e de3ining c"aracteristic, t"en one must 3alsely conclude t"att"ere $ould be somet"ing $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic..

N2. >n no case "as anyt"ing eisted $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic.

>3 an entity $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic does not eist, to $"at does t"e de3ining


11/234

c"aracteristic apply. N1. 8"ere is no 3unctioning o3 a de3ining c"aracteristic in a case $"ere t"ere is 3 t"e eisting t"ing '+ b"a#a+ does not eist, "o$ t"en $ould t"e non-eisting t"ing2+ ab"a#a+ come into eistence

And $"o "olds: t"e eisting-and-non-eisting 1+ t"ing $"ic" does not "a#e t"eproperties o3 an eisting-and-non-eisting t"ing B+

. N*. 8"ere3ore space is neit"er an eisting t"ing nor a non-eisting t"ing,

neit"er somet"ing to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic applies i.e. separate 3rom ade3ining c"aracteristic+

nor a de3ining c"aracteristic. i.e. t"e same as a de3ining c"aracteristic+. Also, t"e ot"er 3i#e irreducible elements can be considered in t"e same $ay as space.. N0. /ut t"ose unenlig"tened people $"o eit"er a33irm reality or non-reality Ho not percei#e t"e blessed cessation-o3-appearance o3 eisting t"ings..

3 t"e Cone $"o desiresC $ould eist be3ore desire itsel3, t"en desire may be regarded.


12/234

I"en desire becomes related to Cone $"o desires,C t"en desire comes into eistence.. N2. >3 t"ere is no one $"o desires, "o$ t"en $ill desire come into being

ndeed, desire and t"e one $"o desires come into being independent o3 eac" ot"er.. NB. 6oncomitance does not eist in t"at $"ic" is only one t"ing, 3 concomitance applied to t"at $"ic" is only one t"ing, t"en t"at one C$it"concomitanceC $ould be t"at one C$it"out 3 concomitance applied to separate t"ings, t"en t"at one C$it" concomitanceC $ouldbe t"at one C$it"out


13/234

trans3ormation, cessation impermanence o3 all products and moments o3 consciousness@. N'. >3 origination utpada+ is a composite product, t"en t"e t"ree c"aracteristics 3 united in a composite product, "o$ could t"ey all be at one place at one time. N1. >3 origination, duration, and dissolution are ot"er


14/234

8"ere is no darkness in t"e lig"t and t"ere $"ere t"e lig"t is placed.I"at could t"e lig"t illumine >ndeed illumination is t"e getting rid o3 darkness.

. N'?. o$ is darkness destroyed by t"e lig"t being originated,

I"en t"e lig"t, being originated, does not come in contact $it" darkness

. N''. /ut t"en, i3 darkness is destroyed by a lig"t "a#ing no contact $it" 3 it "as not yet originated, "o$ does origination produce itsel3And i3 it "as already originated, $"en it is being produced, $"at is produced a3ter t"at

$"ic" is already produced. N'B. >n no $ay does anyt"ing originate by $"at is being originated ii+,

by $"at is already originated iii+,or by $"at is not yet originated i+Q

Just as it "as been said in 3 some particular t"ing $"ic" is not yet originated i+ is indeed kno$n to eist,

8"at t"ing $ill be originated. I"at originates i3 it does not eist. N'0. And i3 t"e origination originates t"at $"ic" is being originated ii+,

I"at origination, in turn, $ould originate t"at origination i.e. in3inite regress+. N'(.


15/234

>3 anot"er origination originates t"at


16/234

N1?. 8"ere3ore cessation o3 a real eisting entity is not possible

And certainly bot" an eisting entity and a non-eisting entity cannot be possible in t"esame case.. N1'.

E#en more, cessation o3 a non-real eisting entity is not possible.Just as t"ere is no second decapitation

. N12. 8"ere is no cessation by means o3 itsel3 nor cessation by somet"ing ot"er t"an itsel3

Just as t"ere is no origination o3 origination by itsel3 nor by anot"er.. N11. /ecause t"e eistence o3 production, duration, and cessation is not pro#ed, t"ere is nocomposite product samskrta+

And i3 a composite product is not pro#ed, "o$ can a non-composite productasamskrta+ be pro#ed. N1B. As a magic trick, a dream or a 3airy castle.

Just so s"ould $e consider origination, duration, and cessation..


17/234

>3 t"e producing action, etc. do not eist, t"en neit"er can t"e true reality d"arma+ nor3alse reality ad"arma+ eist. >3 neit"er t"e true reality nor t"e 3alse reality eists, t"en also t"e product p"ala+ born3rom t"at does not eist.. N).

>3 t"ere is no real product, t"en t"ere also eists no pat" to "ea#en nor to ultimaterelease. 8"us it logically 3ollo$s t"at all producing actions are $it"out purpose.. N*. And a real-nonreal producer does not produce in a real-nonreal manner. For, indeed, "o$ can CrealC and Cnon-real,C $"ic" are mutually contradictory, occur inone place. N0.

A real producer kartra+ does not produce $"at is non-real, and a non-real producerdoes not produce $"at is real.


18/234

. N'. 6ertain people say: &rior to seeing "earing, and ot"er s t"at to $"ic" t"ey belong..

N2.


19/234

. N'2. For "im $"o does not eist pre#ious to, at t"e same time, or a3ter seeing, etc. 8"e conception Ce eists,C Ce does not eist,C is dissipated..

On t"e condition t"at bot" 3ire and kindling can be reciprocally di33erentiated


20/234

N(. >3 3ire is dependent on kindling, so is t"e proo3 o3 t"e pro#ed 3ire. 8"us, being kindling it $ill eist $it"out 3ire.. N'?. I"en a t"ing b"a#a+ is pro#ed by being dependent on somet"ing else, t"en it pro#es

t"e ot"er by being dependent 3 t"at $"ic" is reuired 3or dependence must be pro#ed, t"en $"at is dependent on$"at. N''. >3 t"at t"ing is pro#ed by being dependent, "o$ can t"at $"ic" "as not been pro#ed bedependent So, t"at $"ic" is pro#ed is dependent but t"e dependence is not possible.. N'2.

Fire does not eist in relation to kindling and 3ire does not eist unrelated to kindling. 4indling does not eist in relation to 3ire and kindling does not eist unrelated to 3ire.. N'1. Fire does not come 3rom somet"ing else

and 3ire does not eist in kindling.8"e remaining


21/234

CEistence-in-3luC samsara+ is $it"out bounds indeed, t"ere is no beginning norending o3 t"at


22/234

>3 it $ere produced by itsel3 i.e. sel3-causation+, it $ould not eist dependent onsomet"ing else. 6ertainly t"ose Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+ eist presupposing t"eseCgroups.C. N1.

>3 t"ese $ere di33erent 3rom t"ose, or i3 t"ose $ere di33erent 3rom t"ese, Sorro$ dukk"a+ $ould be produced by somet"ing ot"er t"an itsel3 i.e. ot"er-causation+, because t"ose $ould be made by t"ese ot"ers.. NB. >3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is made t"roug" one7s o$n personality i+ s#apudgala+, t"en one7so$n personality $ould be $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+ I"o is t"at Co$n personalityC by $"ic" sorro$ dukk"a+ is sel3-produced i+. N.

>3 sorro$ dukk"a+ $ere produced by a di33erent personality ii+ parapudgala+, o$ $ould "e, to $"om is gi#en t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ by anot"er a3ter "e "adproduced it, be $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+. N). >3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is produced by a di33erent personality, $"o is t"at di33erentpersonality I"o, $"ile being $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+, yet makes and transmits t"at


23/234

>3 sel3-eistence does eist, $"ose Cot"er-eistenceC $ould t"ere be.

N. Just as t"ere is no ot"er-eistence o3 a t"ing, so also


24/234

N'. 8"at $"ic" is seen, sig"t, and t"e CseerC: t"ese t"ree Ho not combine toget"er eit"er in pairs or altoget"er.. N2. Hesire, t"e one $"o desires, and t"e ob5ect o3 desire "a#e to be regarded in t"e same

$ay,


25/234

. N2. o$, indeed, $ill a sel3-eistent t"ing become Csomet"ing $"ic" is producedC 6ertainly, a sel3-eistent t"ing n C8"e >nstruction o3 4atyayanaC bot" Cit isC and Cit is notC are opposed /y t"e Dlorious One, $"o "as ascertained t"e meaning o3 CeistentC and non-eistent.C. N0. >3 t"ere $ould be an eistent t"ing by its o$n nature, t"ere could not be Cnon-eistence7 o3 t"at >3 t"ere is basic sel3-nature, o3 $"at $ill t"ere be Cot"ernessC. N'?. C>t isC is a notion o3 eternity. C>t is notC is a ni"ilistic #ie$. 8"ere3ore, one $"o is $ise does not "a#e recourse to CbeingC or Cnon-being.C. N''. 8"at $"ic" eists by its o$n nature is eternal since Cit does not not-eist.C

>3 it is maintained: C8"at $"ic" eisted be3ore does not eist no$,C t"ere anni"ilation$ould logically 3ollo$..


26/234

3 t"e personality $ould c"ange $"en it is soug"t 3i#e $ays in t"e CgroupsC skand"a+,Cbases o3 sense perceptionC ayatana+, and t"e Cirreducible elementsC d"atu+, 8"en it does not eist. I"o 3 Ct"at $"ic" is boundC $ere released, Cbeing boundC and CreleaseC $ould eist

simultaneously.. N(.


27/234

C> $ill be released $it"out any acuisition.CC!ir#ana $ill be mine.C

8"ose $"o understand t"us "old too muc" to Ca "olding onC ts &roduct p"ala+ action and itsresults+ = 11 #erses = 8"e $"ole c"ain o3 karma 3ormation and its 3ruits is empty, like amagic trick@

. N'. 8"e state o3 mind $"ic" is sel3-disciplined, being 3a#orably disposed to$ard ot"ers, And 3riends"ip: t"at is t"e d"arma t"at is t"e seed 3or t"e 3ruit no$ and a3ter deat".. N2. 8"e most percepti#e seer


28/234

. N0. >nasmuc" as t"e process is dependent on a seed and t"e 3ruit is produced 3rom t"eprocess, 8"e 3ruit, presupposing t"e seed, neit"er comes to an end nor is eternal..

N(. 8"ere is a product p"ala+ $"en a mental process starts 3rom a t"oug"ts /ut $it"out a t"oug"t t"at


29/234

8"at

/ecause it is $it"out sel3-eistence.

Since it does not originate, it does not peris".. N22. >3 an action did eist as a sel3-eistent t"ing, $it"out a doubt, it $ould be eternal. An action $ould be an unproduced t"ing certainly, t"ere is no eternal t"ing $"ic" isproduced.. N21. >3 t"e action $ere not produced, t"en t"ere could be t"e 3ear attaining somet"ing 3romCsomet"ing not producedC

8"en t"e opposite to a saintly discipline $ould 3ollo$ as a 3allacy.. N2B. 8"en, undoubtedly, all daily a33airs $ould be precluded. And e#en t"e distinction bet$een saints and sinners is not possible.. N2. 8"en an act $"ose de#elopment "ad taken place $ould de#elop again, >3 an act, because it persists, eists t"roug" its o$n nature.. N2). An action is t"at $"ose Csel3C atman+ is desire, and t"e desires do not really eist. >3 t"ese desires do not really eist, "o$ $ould t"e action really eist. N2*. Action and desire are declared to be t"e conditioning cause o3 t"e body. >3 action and desire are empty, $"at need one say about CbodyC. N20. s one $"o seeks en5oyment. e is not di33erent 3rom t"e one $"o acts, nor identical toit..


30/234

N2(.

And i3 t"ere is no product, "o$ can t"ere be an en5oyer o3 t"e product. N1'. Just as a teac"er, by "is magical po$er, 3ormed a magical 3orm, And t"is magical 3orm 3ormed again anot"er magical 3ormQ. N12. Just so t"e Cone $"o 3ormsC is "imsel3 being 3ormed magically and t"e act per3ormed

by "im >s like a magical 3orm being magically 3ormed by anot"er magical 3orm.. N11. Hesires, actions, bodies, producers, and products Are like a 3airy castle, resembling a mirage, a dream..


31/234

N. On account o3 t"e destruction o3 t"e pains klesa+ o3 action t"ere is release 3or pains o3action eist 3or "im $"o constructs t"em. 8"ese pains result 3rom p"enomenal etension prapanca+ but t"is p"enomenaletension comes to a stop by emptiness..

N*. I"en t"e domain o3 t"oug"t "as been dissipated, Ct"at $"ic" can be statedC isdissipated. 8"ose t"ings $"ic" are unoriginated and not terminated, like nir#ana, constitute t"e8rut" d"armata+.. N0. E#eryt"ing is CactualC tat"yam+ or Cnot-actual,C or bot" Cacts actual-and-not-actual,C Or Cneit"er-actual-nor-not-actualC:

8"is is t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"a.

. N(. C!ot caused by somet"ing else,C Cpeace3ul,C Cnot elaborated by discursi#e t"oug"t,C C>ndeterminate,C Cundi33erentiatedC: suc" are t"e c"aracteristics o3 true reality tatt#a+.. N'?. I"ate#er eists, being dependent


32/234

Iit"out presupposing Ct"e pastC t"e t$o t"ings 3 a cause, "a#ing gi#en t"e cause 3or a product, is stopped, 8"en t"at $"ic" is Cgi#enC and t"at $"ic" is stopped $ould be t$o identities o3 t"ecause.. N). >3 a cause $it"out "a#ing gi#en t"e cause 3or a product is stopped

8"en, t"e cause being stopped, t"e product $ould be produced as somet"ing deri#ed3rom a non-cause a"etuka+..


33/234

N*. >3 t"e product $ould become #isible concomitantly $it" t"e aggregate t $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"ere $ould be anot"er production o3 t"e pre#iousproducing cause.

. N'?. o$ can t"at $"ic" is stopped, i.e., somet"ing $"ic" "as disappeared, produce t"earising o3 a product

o$ could a cause $"ic" is enclosed by its product, e#en t"oug" it persists, originate3 t"e cause is not empty o3 a product, "o$ $ould it produce t"e product

. N'*. A non-empty product $ould not be originated,


34/234

be destroyed. 8"en t"at is non-empty $"ic" $ill not originate or not disappear.. N'0. o$ $ould t"at be produced $"ic" is empty o$ $ould t"at be destroyed $"ic" is empty

>t logically 3ollo$s, t"en, t"at $"ic" is empty is not originated and not destroyed.. N'(. 6ertainly a oneness o3 cause and product is not possible at all. !or is a di33erence o3 cause and product possible at all.. N2?. >3 t"ere $ere a oneness o3 t"e cause and product, t"en t"ere $ould be an identity o3t"e originator and $"at is originated. >3 t"ere $ere a di33erence o3 product and cause, t"en a cause $ould be t"e same as

t"at $"ic" is not a cause.. N2'. 6an a cause produce a product $"ic" is essentially eisting in itsel3 s#ab"#a+ 6an a cause produce a product $"ic" is not essentially eisting in itsel3 s#ab"a#a+. N22. >t is not possible to "a#e C$"at is by its nature a causeC "etut#a+ o3 Ct"at $"ic" is notproducing.C >3 C$"at is by its nature a causeC is not possible, $"ose product $ill eist

. N21. o$ $ill t"at


35/234

N1. o$ can disappearance eist concomitantly $it" origination Since, surely, deat" does not eist at t"e same moment as birt".. NB. o$, indeed, $ill origination eist at all $it"out disappearance

For, impermanence does not 3ail to be 3ound in eistent t"ings e#er.. N. o$ can origination eist concomitantly $it" disappearance Since, surely, deat" does not eist at t"e same moment as birt".. N). I"en t$o t"ings cannot be pro#ed eit"er separately or toget"er, !o proo3 eists o3 t"ose t$o t"ings.

o$ can t"ese t$o t"ings be pro#ed

. N*. 8"ere is no origination o3 t"at $"ic" is destructible, nor o3 t"at $"ic" is not-destructible. 8"ere is no disappearance o3 t"at $"ic" is destructible nor o3 t"at $"ic" is non-destructible.. N0. Origination and disappearance cannot eist $it"out an eistent t"ing. Iit"out origination and disappearance an eistent t"ing does not eist.

. N(. Origination and disappearance does not obtain 3or t"at $"ic" is empty. Origination and disappearance does not obtain 3or t"at $"ic" is non-empty.. N'?. >t does not obtain t"at origination and disappearance are t"e same t"ing. >t does not obtain t"at origination and disappearance are di33erent.. N''.


36/234

N'B. For someone assuming an eistent t"ing, eit"er an eternalistic or ni"ilistic point o3 #ie$$ould logically 3ollo$, For t"at eistent t"ing $ould be eit"er eternal or liable to cessation.. N'.

3 t"ere is sel3-eistence o3 somet"ing $"ic" is intrinsically eisting, t"en non-eistencedoes not obtain. At t"e time o3 nir#ana t"ere is destruction o3 t"e cycle o3 eistence b"a#asamtana+ asa result o3 t"e cessation.. N'0. >3 t"e last


37/234

skand"a+, nor somet"ing ot"er t"an t"e CgroupsC

t"e CgroupsC are not in "im, nor is "e in t"em8"e C3ully completedC does not possess t"e Cgroups.CI"at, t"en, is t"e C3ully completedC

.

N2. >3 t"e /udd"a eists dependent on t"e Cgroups,C t"en "e is not Ct"at $"ic" eists byitsel3C s#abba#a+ And "o$ can "e eist as somet"ing else parab"a#a+ Cot"er-eistenceC+ i3 "e is notCt"at $"ic" eists by itsel3C s#abba#a+. N1. 8"at $"ic" eists presupposing anot"er eistent t"ing is properly called a Cnon-indi#idual sel3C anatma+. o$ $ill t"at $"ic" is a non-indi#idual sel3 become t"e C3ully completedC

. NB. And i3 t"ere is no sel3-eistence s#ab"a#a+, "o$ $ould it "a#e an Cot"er-eistenceCparab"a#a+ I"at $ould t"at C3ully completedC t is dependent no$ t"ere3ore it eists dependent


38/234

. N''. One may not say t"at t"ere is CemptinessC sunya+ '+ nor t"at t"ere is non-emptiness. 2+C

!or t"at bot" t is said t"at desire raga+, "ate, and delusion are deri#ed 3rom mental 3abricationsamkalpa+, /ecause t"ey come into eistence presupposing errors as to $"at is salutary andunsalutary.. N2. 8"ose t"ings $"ic" come into eistence presupposing errors as to $"at is salutary andunsalutary

Ho not eist by t"eir o$n nature s#ab"a#a+ t"ere3ore t"e impurities klesa+ do noteist in reality..


39/234

N1. 8"e eistence or non-eistence o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ is not pro#ed at all. Iit"out t"at s it not so t"at $it"out someone t"e impurities do not eist o3 anybody. N. >n re3erence to t"e #ie$ o3 "a#ing a body o3 one7s o$n, t"e impurities do not eist in$"at is made impure according to t"e 3i#e-3old manner. >n re3erence to t"e #ie$ o3 "a#ing a body o3 one7s o$n, t"at $"ic" is made impuredoes not eist in t"e impurities according to t"e 3i#e-3old manner.. N).

8"e errors as to $"at is salutary and non-salutary do not eist as sel3-eistent entitiess#ab"a#atas+ Hepending on $"ic" errors as to $"at is salutary and non-salutary are t"en impurities. N*. Form, sound, taste, touc", smell, and t"e d"armas: t"is si-3old Substance #astu+ o3 desire, "ate, and delusion is imagined.. N0. Form, sound, taste, touc", smell, and t"e d"armas are

Merely t"e 3orm o3 a 3airy castle, like a mirage, a dream.. N(. o$ $ill Ct"at $"ic" is salutaryC or Ct"at $"ic" is non-salutaryC come into eistence >n a 3ormation o3 a magical man, or in t"ings like a re3lection. N'?. Ie submit t"at t"ere is no non-salutary t"ing unrelated to a salutary t"ing.


40/234

. N'B. E#en i3 t"e notion C$"at is permanent is in somet"ing impermanentC is in error, >s not t"en t"e notion concerning emptiness, i.e., t"at it is impermanent, in error. N'.

8"at by $"ic" a notion is 3ormed, t"e notion, t"ose $"o "a#e notions, and t"at $"ic"is grasped


41/234

>3 any kind o3 sel3-eistent impurities do not belong to somebody, o$ in all t"e $orld $ould t"ey be eliminated I"o can eliminate t"at $"ic" is non-sel3-eistent.


42/234

And $it"out "a#ing understood t"e "ig"est sense 82+ one cannot understand nir#ana81+.. N''. Emptiness, "a#ing been dimly percei#ed, utterly destroys t"e slo$-$itted. >t is like a snake $rongly grasped or 3 all eistence is not empty, t"ere is neit"er origination nor destruction. %ou must $rongly conclude t"en t"at t"e 3our "oly trut"s do not eist.. N2'. a#ing originated $it"out being conditioned, "o$ $ill sorro$ dukk"a+ come into

eistence >t is said t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ is not eternal t"ere3ore, certainly it does not eist by itso$n nature s#abba#a+.


43/234

. N22. o$ can t"at $"ic" is eisting by its o$n nature originate again For "im $"o denies emptiness t"ere is no production.. N21.

8"ere is no destruction o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ i3 it eists by its o$n nature. /y trying to establis" Csel3-eistenceC you deny destruction.. N2B. >3 t"e pat" ndeed, is it not true t"at sel3-eistence is t"at $"ic" endures. N2*. As in t"e case o3 complete kno$ledge, neit"er destruction, realiation, Cbringing into

eistence,C !or are t"e 3our "oly 3ruits possible 3or you.. N20. >3 you accept Csel3-eistence,C and a C3ruitC is not kno$n by its sel3-eistence, o$ can it be kno$n at all. N2(. >n t"e non-eistence o3 C3ruit,C t"ere is no Cresiding in 3ruitC nor obtaining


44/234

Iill not attain t"e enlig"tenment t"oug" t"e C$ay o3 li3e o3 becoming 3ullyenlig"tened.C. N11. !eit"er t"e d"arma nor non-d"arma $ill be done any$"ere. I"at is produced $"ic" is non-empty 6ertainly sel3-eistence is not produced.

. N1B. 6ertainly, 3or you, t"ere is a product $it"out 3, 3or you, t"e product is caused by d"arma or non-d"arma, be non-empty o$ can t"at product, being originated by d"arma or non-d"arma empty.

N1). %ou deny all mundane and customary acti#ities I"en you deny emptiness


45/234

>3 all eistence is non-empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction. 8"en $"ose nir#ana t"roug" elimination


46/234

>3 nir#ana $ere bot" an eistent and a non-eistent t"ing, 8"ere $ould be no nir#ana $it"out conditions, 3or t"ese bot" s pro#ed i3


47/234

>s t"ere anyt"ing $"ic" is t"is or somet"ing else, $"ic" is permanent or impermanent, I"ic" is bot" permanent and impermanent, or $"ic" is neit"er. N2B. 8"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing 3 "e $ere someone $it"out acuisition, t"at being $ould be released, and $ould not


48/234

eist.. N0. 8"at being is t"e 3i#e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"a+. /ecause o3 a being,birt" ''+ begins to 3unction.

Dro$ing old, dying, sorro$ dukk"a+ '2+, etc., grie3 and regrets,

. N(. Hespair and agitation: all t"is results 3rom birt" 8"at Cproduced beingC is a single mass o3 sorro$s dukk"a+.. N'?. 8"us t"e ignorant people construct t"e conditioned t"ings samskara+ "a#e not eisted in t"e past,C etc.@. N2. 8"e assertion: C> $ill not become somet"ing di33erent in a 3uture time,C C> $ill become


49/234

>3 it $ere "eld t"at: C8"ere is no indi#idual sel3 $it"out t"e acuisition,C 8"en t"e indi#idual sel3 $ould be "a#e not eisted in a past time 2+C does not obtain, For t"at one $ill become somet"ing in a 3uture time '7+,C Or C> $ill not become 27+


50/234

. N'). >3 man is di33erent 3rom god, t"ere $ould eist somet"ing non-eternal ii+. >3 man is di33erent 3rom god, t"en a continuity does not obtain.i.e. t"ey cannot bedi33erent+.

N'*. >3 one part $ere di#ine and anot"er part "uman, i.e. a man $it" an eternal soul+ 8"en t"ere $ould be somet"ing non-eternal 3 someone, "a#ing come 3rom some$"ere, in some $ay goes some$"ere again, 8"en t"ere $ould be eistence-in-3lu $it" no beginning but t"is is not t"e case.. N2?. >3 someone $"o is eternal does not eist, $"o $ill eist being non-eternal, Or $"o being bot" eternal and non-eternal, or de#oid o3 t"ese t$o 3 t"e $orld $ould not come to an end, "o$ $ould an ot"er-$orld come into being

. N22. Since t"e continuity o3 t"e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+


51/234

possible.. N2*. o$, indeed, can it be t"at one part o3 t"e acuisition : AER8>!D 8E ARDGME!8S A traduction o3 igra"a#ya#artani by !agar5una.

8"e Sanskrit tet used 3or t"is translation is 3ound in C8"e igra"a#ya#artani o3

!agar5una,C E. . Jo"nston and Arnold 4unst, eds., M6/, >U July, '('+, '?0-'..3 sel3-eistence s#ab"a#a+ does not eist any$"ere in any eisting t"ing, %our statement,


52/234

N. >3 you deny eisting t"ings $"ile being seen by direct perception, 8"en t"at direct perception, by $"ic" t"ings are seen, also does not eist.. N). /y 3 t"is is so, t"en t"ere is t"e appre"ensions C$"at is appre"endedC and t"e one $"oappre"ends,

Also t"e denial, C$"at is deniedC and t"e one $"o denies-- si-all toget"er.. N'.


53/234

o$e#er, i3 t"e appre"ension, C$"at is appre"endedC and t"e one $"o appre"ends donot eist. 8"en is it not true t"at denial, C$"at is denied,C and t"e one $"o denies do not eist. N'). >3 denial, C$"at is denied,C ant t"e one $"o denies do not eist,

8"en all eisting t"ings as $ell as t"e sel3-eistence o3 t"em are pro#ed 3 t"e proo3 o3 your denial o3 a sel3-eistent t"ing is not a result o3 grounds o3

kno$ledge, 8"en my a33irmation o3 t"e eistence o3 a sel3-eistent t"ing is pro#ed $it"out grounds.. N'(. Or i3 you maintain: C8"e real eistence o3 grounds is suc" t"at it is a non-sel3-eistentt"ing as#ab"a#a+ t"is is not 5usti3ied /ecause no t"ing $"ate#er in t"e $orld eists lacking it o$n nature nis"#ab"a#a+.. N2?. I"en it is mid: 8"e denial precedes C$"at is denied,C t"is is not 5usti3ied.

- !agar5una7s Reply to t"e Arguments o3 t"e Opponents@. 2'. >3 any t"esis does not bear on t"e totality o3 causes and conditions, or on t"emseparately, >s not emptiness pro#ed because o3 t"e 3act t"at t"ere is no sel3-eistence in eistingt"ings '+. N22. 8"e Cbeing dependent natureC o3 eisting t"ings: t"at is called Cemptiness.C 8"at $"ic" "as a nature o3 Cbeing dependentCQo3 t"at t"ere is a non-sel3-eistentnature.. N21. Just as a magically 3ormed p"antom could deny a p"antom created by its o$n magic, Just so $ould be t"at negation.. N2B. 8"is statement


54/234

. N2. $ould "a#e a logical error /ut > do not make a proposition t"ere3ore > am not in error.. N1?.

>3 t"ere is somet"ing, $"ile being seen by means o3 t"e ob5ects o3 direct perceptions,etc., t is@ a33irmed or denied. 8"at


55/234

8"en is t"is not like a 3ire $"ic" $ould illumine its o$n sel3 and somet"ing else. N1). >3, according to your statement, 3ire $ould illumine bot" its Co$n sel3C and an Cot"ersel3,C 8"en also darkness, like 3ire, $ould darken itsel3 and an Cot"er sel3.C

. N1*. Harkness does not eist in t"e glo$ o3 a 3ire and $"ere t"e glo$ remains in an Cot"erindi#idual sel3,C o$ could it produce lig"t >ndeed lig"t is t"e deat" o3 darkness.. N10. 3 you say:@ CFire illumines $"en it is being produced,C t"is statement is not true For, $"en being produced, 3ire certainly does not touc" prapnoti+ darkness..

N1(. !o$ i3 t"at glo$ can destroy t"e darkness again and again $it"out touc"ing it, 8"en t"at


56/234

Or i3, 3or you, t"e sources 3 t"ose $"o kno$ t"e modes o3 t"e d"armas say t"at t"ere is good sel3-eistence o3good d"armas, 8"at


57/234

8"ere $ould be neit"er #ice nor #irtue, and $orldly practical acti#ities $ould not bepossible Sel3-eistent t"ings $ould be eternal because t"at $it"out a cause $ould be eternal.. N). Regarding do not deny anyt"ing 8"ere3ore,


58/234

!o$ "ear t"e ascertainment $"ereby t"at instance is logically possible.. N)). >3 t"at appre"ension 3 t"at appre"ension is Csomet"ing $"ic" is sel3-eistent,C $it" $"at could t"eappre"ension be negated 8"is understanding


59/234

omments onNagarjuna!s MulamadhyamakaKarikas

"Fundamental of the Middle Way".

!ote: 8"is is a copy o3 a $orking document > reser#e t"e rig"t to c"ange my mind anytime about any o3 t"is.+

.ERSES FROM :

Frederick J. Streng,Emptiness - A Study in Religious Meaning

!as"#ille and !e$ %ork: Abingdon &ress, '()*+Appendi A / pp. '01-22*

9': O! 8O 8E A&&E!H>U A@9': !8ROHG68OR% ERSES9': S 8ERE A!%8>!D 8A8 >S 8E 6AGSE OF SAMSARA A!H 8A8 IE 6A!6O!8RO9: A &A8@92: O! ' - A! A!A9%S>S OF 6O!H>8>O!>!D 6AGSES &RA8%A%A+ 6O!H>8>O!S+= 'B ERSES = 8%, HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!, HE8ERM>!>SM, 6O!8RO9@91: 6 RVSGMV OF SE68>O! '@

91: !ES 6%69ES OF 6AGSA9>8%@92: O! 2 - A! A!A9%S>S OF CDO>!D 8OC 6A!DE OR MOEME!8+ = 2 ERSES= 99GS>O! OF 6O!8>!G>8% 8ROGD 6A!DE OR MOEME!8@@


60/234

91:

9:


61/234

92: O! 1 - A! A!A9%S>S OF C>S>O!C A!H O8ER SE!SE-FA6G98>ES 8ESE!SE-F>E9HS+ -- ( = U SE!SES, H>RE68 &ER6E&8>O!, 8E S>U O/JE68S IOR9H@@91: nitial-seeri+ sense-organ -- W seer seeingii+ -- W resulting-seeriii+ $it" kno$ledge@91: O! - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8E C>RREHG68>/9E E9EME!8SC HA8GS+ 8EE9EME!8S+ = 0 = RREHG6>/9E E9EME!8S HEF>!EH /% 8E>R /AS>66ARA68ER>S8>6S@@91: nterdependence o3 t"e trio: t"e c"aracteristic de3ines a c"aracteried@91: S OF HES>RE RADA+ A!H O!E IO HES>RES RA48A+ !8E 6O!8EU8 OF 8E>R SE&ARA8E!ESS A!H 6O!6OM>8A!6E@ AFFE68>O! A!H 8E&ERSO! AFFE68EH+ = '? = 8A!6E, A &ERSO! A!H >S A6XG>REH S8RO!DA/>8S, 8E 6O!6OM>8A!8 FA68ORS OF 6O!S6>OGS!ESS@@91: nterdependence o3 t"e sub5ect-"a#ing-dispositions and t"e complementdispositions@91:

9):


62/234

9: 9: O! ( - A! A!A9%S>S OF C8E &RE-EU>S8E!8 REA9>8%C &GRA+ DRAS&ERA!H DRAS&>!D+ = '2 = U SE!SES, &ER6E>ER/EFORE &ER6E&8>O!@@

91: 8% OF SE9F 8E F>E ADDREDA8ES OF 69>!D>!D !O!-HGA9>8% OFHE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O! A!H EM&8>!ESS@@91: 8SA&ARA4>8>+ S8E!6E@ SAMSARA+ = 0 = !>!D SAMSARA A!H K!O-SE9FLI>8OG8 GS>!D A!% >!ERE!8 HARMA.@@

91:


63/234

9': !8ER!A9, EU8ER!A9, /O8 OR !E>8ER@@91: S OF G!>F>6A8>O! SAMSARDA+ 6OM/>!A8>O!+ = 0 =!SE&ARA/>9>8% OF 8E 8REE REA9MS OR OF /OH%, S&EE6 A!H M>!H@@91:

91: O! '* - A! A!A9%S>S OF A68>O! 4ARMA+ A!H >8S &ROHG68 &A9A+A68>O! A!H >8S RESG98S+ = 11 = ! OF 4ARMA FORMA8>O! A!H>8S FRG>8S >S EM&8%, 9>4E A MAD>6 8R>64@@91:


64/234

9B: n"erent actions $ould imply no utility 3or any morality@9B: O! 2? - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8E ADDREDA8E SAMADR>+ OF 6AGSES A!H6O!H>8>O!S 6AGSE A!H EFFE68+ - 2B@91:


65/234

91: !ESSC 8O EU&RESS 8E 8A8ADA8A @91: S OF ERRORS >&AR%ASA+ 8E &ERER8EH >EIS+ -2@92: O! 2B - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8E O9% 8RG8S AR%ASA8%A+ 8E !O/9E8RG8S+ - B?@

91:

9: !D H>FFERE!8@9B: FFERE!8 -- 8E! IA8 6A!DES@92: O! 2) - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8E 8IE9E 6OM&O!E!8S HAHASA!DA+ 8E8IE9E S&O4ES+ - '2@91: S OF 8E >EIS HRS8>+ A/OG8 REA9>8% HODMAS+ -

1?@91: < A. SEAR6>!D FOR A /E>!D >! 8E 6%69E OF SAMSARA +@9B: 8% CSE9FC #s. CA6XG>S>8>O!C:+@91: !D FOR A CH>>!E SOG9C >! A 8EM&ORAR% C/OH%C+@91: O! A/OG8 A SE9F >! SAMSARA+@91: !D FOR 8E 6%69E OF SAMSARA >8SE9F


66/234

9': ntroduction to t"e Appendi A@.[ A translation o3 Mulamad"yamaka4arikas by !agar5una, as preser#ed in6andrakirti7s &rasannapada. 8"e Sanskrit tet used 3or t"is translation is 3ound inMulamad"yamaka4arikas mab"yamikasutra+ de !agariuna a#er la &rasannapada,6ommentaire de 6andrakirti, 9ouis de 9a all;e &oussin, ed. St &etersbourg, '('1+.

.8"e Fundamental o3 t"e Middle Iay Mulamad"yamaka4arikas + is a series o3 about B?mnemonic #erses. >n t"e 3amous commentary &rasannapada o3 6andrakirti, it is di#idedinto t$enty-se#en c"apters o3 uneual lengt". 8"ere is a de#elopment o3 t"oug"t 3rom t"e3irst t"roug" t"e t$enty-3i3t" c"apter $"ic" may originally "a#e been t"e 3inal c"apter+. >tis t"e mo#ement 3rom a rat"er 3ormal and stylied analysis to an almost impassionedepression o3 t"e "ig"est trut". 6"apter ' inaugurates t"e critical met"od $"ic"!agar5una $ill use: prasanga, a logical met"od o3 necessary conseuence. Iit" t"ismet"od !agar5una demolis"es t"e t"eories o3 elements d"armas+ and o3 cause until inc"aps. ii on t"e 8at"agata+, i# on t"e Four oly 8rut"s+, and # on nir#ana+ t"ere

appears a reinterpretation o3 t"e most important notions in /udd"ism. 8"e logical critiueo3 CcauseC in 6"apter ' is a direct epression o3 t"e insig"t into t"e emptiness o3 reality$"ic" is emp"asied again in 6"apter # $it" t"e declaration t"at t"ere is no di33erencebet$een nir#ana and samsara. o$e#er, one can note a di33erence in t"e "andling o3 t"isperspecti#e. I"at is dealt $it" in logical terms in 6"apter i is "andled in a $ay t"at ispractical 3or attaining release in 6"apter #..8"e di33erent c"apters represent t"e analyses o3 di33erent elements or CcategoriesC by$"ic" muc" o3 past /udd"ism "ad understood reality. For instance, 6"apters iii-# analyet"e traditional classi3ications o3 d"armas: skand"as, ayatanas, and d"atus. >n subseuent

c"apters t"ere is a similar analysis o3 suc" notions as Cpassion,C t"e CpastC pur#a+,CturmoilC dukk"a+, Cimpulses o3 transient eistences samskara+, CactionC karma+, andt"e Csel3C atman+. 6ertain topics o3 special signi3icance, suc" as CactionC and Ce#ilCklesa+, are treated in t$o considerations. 8"e 3irst is a s"ort 3ormal consideration in $"ic"t"e notion is s"o$n to be logically 3alse $"en considered as a sel3-eistent realitysecondly, t"ere is a more 3ully de#eloped discussion s"o$ing t"e practical implications 3orspiritual insig"t. Special note s"ould also be taken o3 6"apter ii $"ic" is a logical critiueo3 Cmotion.C 8"e met"od o3 analysis appears to be rat"er arid and o3ten simply a play on$ords, $"ile epressing a minute and systematic rigor. !e#ert"eless, t"is met"od is usedas a model o3 demonstration in ot"er c"apters o3 t"e 4arikas , so it cannot be disregarded.8"e 3acetious appearance o3 t"e argument is instructi#e since it seeks to point out t"e#ulnerability o3 t"e e33ort in t"e Ab"id"arma $"ic" took so seriously t"e task o3 classi3yingand de3ining t"e elements o3 eistence..See commentary: 8"inking in /udd"ism: !agar5una7s Middle Iay

9': ntroductory erses.... 8"is is ec"oed by !agar5una in t"e pre3ace to "is Muulamad"yamikakaarikaas, $"ic"uses eig"t negations to describe t"e true nature o3 t"ings:

.[ '. t"ey do not die[ 2. and are not born,


67/234

[ 1. t"ey do not cease to be[ B. and are not eternal,[ . t"ey are not t"e same[ ). and are not di33erent,[ *. t"ey do not come[ 0. and do not go.

.Jona" Iinters: !agar5una7s religious piety and "is trenc"ant p"ilosop"y are in no $aycontradictory. 8"is "armony bet$een "is 3ait" and "is intellect is epressed by t"e t$odedicatory #erses $it" $"ic" "e opens t"e 4arikas :.[ NNN[ C> salute "im, t"e 3ully-enlig"tened, t"e best o3 speakers,[ $"o preac"ed t"e non-ceasing and t"e non-arising,[ t"e non-anni"ilation and t"e non-permanence,[ t"e non-identity and t"e non-di33erence,

[ t"e non-appearance and t"e non-disappearance,[ t"e dependent arising,[ t"e appeasement o3 obsessions and t"e auspicious.C.>n actuality, t"eir signi3icance is great, 3or t"ey summarie, in a mere eig"teen $ords inSanskrit+, t"e entirety o3 t"e Mad"yamika p"ilosop"ical approac". All o3 t"e p"ilosop"icalaspects contained in t"ese #erses "a#e been or $ill be discussed at lengt" else$"ere int"is t"esis.+

9': S 8ERE A!%8>!D 8A8 >S 8E 6AGSE OF SAMSARA A!H 8A8 IE 6A!6O!8RO9: A &A8@92:


68/234

9B: O!A9 6O!H>8>O!>!D 6AGSES: So t"ere is no absolutecause, but causes are not completely non-eistent eit"er t"ere are use3ul con#entionalcauses = con#entional trut"s. >n some tets t"ere are muc" more types o3 causes, butt"ey all come do$n to t"ese 3our "ere. 8"ere is no need to eamine ot"er types o3causes. Eac" one is brie3ly eamined in t"is section, and analyed in more details in ot"ersections. I"y !agar5una t"ink t"ere s"ould be only 3our t"at is a good uestion, and >dont kno$ yet.-- Ketu, moti#eL is co#ered in section 2-- KOb5ects o3 sensationsL is co#ered i sectio 1-- K>mmediately preceding conditionL is co#ered in sections * 2'-- K&redominant in3luenceL is co#ered in section ' ).+.9B:

[ 1.[ 6ertainly t"ere is no sel3-eistence s#ab"a#a+ o3 eisting t"ings in conditioningcauses, etc


69/234

[ And i3 no sel3-eistence eists, neit"er does Cot"er-eistenceC parab"a#a+..>F 8ERE >S !O >!ERE!89% EU>S8E!8 6AGSE, 8E! 8ERE >S !O O8ER-EU>S8E!6E, OR 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!6E &OSS>/9E: >3 t"ere is no cause in"erentlyeistent, t"en t"ere cannot be Kot"er-eistenceL, or Kcomplete non-eistenceL o3 t"osecauses eit"er. Ob#iously, i3 somet"ing is not eistent 3irst, t"en it cannot c"ange into

somet"ing else, or cease completely. = Anot"er $ay to look at t"is: a cause is not t"esame be3ore, during and a3ter t"e causing. >t needs to be triggered to be come acti#e,t"en later to be stopped. All o3 t"is is done t"roug" ot"er causes and conditions t"at comeand in3luence t"e so called cause. >t is not t"e same t"ing t"at is about to cause, iscausing, and "as caused. = On t"e ot"er "and, t"e cause is not completely di33erentbe3ore, during and a3ter t"e causing. 8"e cause doesnt c"ange into somet"ing else, orbecome a non-cause at t"e end. >t is not a completely di33erent t"ing t"at is about tocause, is causing, or "as caused. 8"is $ill be analyed more in section 2.-- 8"ere is no absolute continuity o3 identity o3 t"e cause. 8"ere is no completediscontinuity o3 identity. !ot"ing eist and c"ange.

-- 8"is $ill lead to t"e realiation t"at t"ere is no permanent sel3 moti#ating and doing allactions nor are t"e one doing t"e action and t"e one su33ering its conseuences totallydi33erent. !o in"erent sel3, not complete absence o3 sel3.+.9B:

possessing a conditioning cause,[ !or does t"e e33icient cause eist $it"out possessing a conditioning cause.[ 6onditioning causes are not $it"out e33icient causes,[ !or are t"ere MAR% 6AGSE 9>4E MO8>E: So no cause like moti#e+ is $it"out its o$n causesand conditions no e33ect $it"out a cause+ but none o3 t"ese causes, indi#idually ortoget"er, are absolute determining no e33ect $it" a cause+ because t"ey "a#e t"eiro$n causes conditions, ad in3initum. 8"at doesnt mean t"at t"ese causes arecompletely non-eistent, completely imagined t"ey are not $it"out any in3luence on t"emoti#e, $it"out any e33ect no cause $it"out an e33ect+ 5ust t"at moti#e t"e e33ect "ere+is ne#er entirely determined by t"ose causes no cause $it" an e33ect+ since t"ere canal$ays be ot"er #ariables t"at can c"ange t"e outcome. -- ere $e are talking aboutKmoti#e "etuLt"e 3irst type o3 conditioning causes listed in #erse ':2+ as t"e primarycause o3 all o3 our actions, and karma 3ormation. >t is also an e33ect, also dependent on itso$n causes and conditions, but not totally determined by t"ose causes and conditions.Moti#e is not a primary cause. So t"ere is no total 3ree $ill, nor total determinism in ourc"oices and actions. Meaning t"at our c"oices are also conditioned by our o$naccumulated karma, but t"at $e can transcend t"is conditioning.-- More on moti#e: section 2, especially #erses 2:2B-2+.

9B:


70/234

[ .[ 6ertainly t"ose t"ings are called Cconditioning causesC $"ereby somet"ingoriginates a3ter "a#ing come upon t"em[ As long as somet"ing "as not originated, $"y are t"ey not so long i.e. during t"attime+ Cnon-conditioning-causesC .

8E% ARE 6O!E!8>O!A9 8RG8S, !EER A/SO9G8E 6AGSE: So t"e causes are notin"erently eisting sel3-eisting+, not completely non-eistent t"ey are not absolutedetermining+, but not $it"out any e33ect. So $"at are t"ey 8"ey are con#entionaltrut"s, "ypot"esis and imper3ect t"eories o3 causality based on obser#ed regularity in alimited contet. And in t"at role t"ey are #ery use3ul con#entional trut"s e#en i3 ne#erabsolute. 6auses are names gi#en to t"ings or p"enomena a3ter t"e apparent obser#ed3act and regularity bet$een t"em and somet"ing else. /ut $e s"ould be a$are t"atnot"ing can be called a Ksure causeL o3 somet"ing until it is done and con#entionallyaccepted, because ot"er causes and conditions can come and c"ange t"e outcome anytime, or it can be interpreted di33erently con#entionally. 8"ey are ne#er Ksure causeL or

Kin"erent causeL but it is use3ul to con#entionally call t"em causes, e33ects, and causalrelations, in order to be able to use t"is regularity in a limited $ay. = >n science it is use3ulto describe regularity in a limited contet $it" euations in#ol#ing t"e most importantparameters but t"ere can al$ays be ot"er #ariables t"at can come and c"ange t"eresults. 8"ere is ne#er a per3ectly controlled eperience.+.9B:


71/234

.[ NNN[ 0.[ Just t"at $"ic" is $it"out an ob5ect o3 sensation is accepted as a real element[ 8"en i3 t"ere is an element "a#ing no ob5ect o3 sensation, "o$ is it possible to"a#e an ob5ect o3 sensation

.6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E OF 6AGSE EFFE68 = 8E EUAM&9E OF 8EA%A8A!AS: ere $e are talking about Kob5ects o3 sensations t"e ) senses organs andt"e si types o3 ob5ects o3 t"e sensesLt"e second type o3 conditioning causes listed in#erse ':2+ as t"e primary causes o3 all o3 our perceptions and acuired kno$ledge. >t ist"oug"t t"at real independent ob5ects o3 t"e $orld are directly percei#ed by real ob5ecti#esenses. So t"e t$el#e o3 t"em are t"oug"t to be independent causes, and t"eir e33ect, incombination $it" t"e si consciousnesses, is true direct perception o3 an independentreality. /ut, as stated in #erse ':', t"e senses organs and t"e ob5ects o3 t"e senses cannoteist on t"eir o$n, t"ey cannot be sel3-caused, independent o3 e#eryt"ing else. 8"ey

s"ould not be considered as primary causes.= Also, e#en in t"e case o3 perception, t"e senses organs are called t"is $ay onlycon#entionally. Gntil t"ere is perception, t"ere is no reason to call somet"ing an organ o3t"e senses. And i3 it $ould eist in"erently independently o3 any ob5ect o3 t"e senses, t"enit $ould not be in3luenced by an ob5ect o3 t"e senses a sel3-eisting t"ing is independent,and unin3luenced by ot"er t"ings+, and t"ere $ould be no perception at all. -- More on t"eayatanas in section 1.+.[ NNN[ (.

[ I"en no elements "a#e originated, MG98A!E>8%, !O! H>FFERE!6E = 8E EUAM&9E OF 8E >MMEH>A8E9%&RE6EH>!D 6O!H>8>O!: ere $e are talking about Kimmediately precedingconditionLt"e t"ird type o3 conditioning causes listed in #erse ':2+ as t"e necessary realcause 3or t"e net moment o3 consciousness. >n a comple Ab"id"arma model o3 t"e $ayt"e continuity o3 t"e mind is assumed necessary to eplain t"e continuity o3 karma+,t"ere is a succession o3 in3initesimal moments o3 consciousness 3or $"ic" t"e precedingmoment is one o3 t"e necessary causes. >t is t"oug"t t"at $it"out a preceding moment o3consciousness t"ere is no possible net consciousness because consciousness cannotarise 3rom not"ing, or 3rom material conditions only. 8"ese successi#e moments o3consciousness are t"oug" to be real, in"erently eisting. 8"e stream o3 consciousness ist"oug"t to be a series o3 discrete moments. 8"e problem is t"at t"e 5unction bet$een t$oconsecuti#e moments, acting as cause and e33ect, cannot be eplained: cause e33ectcannot be simultaneous or o#erlapping+, nor can t"ey be in seuence separate in time+.>3 t"ey $ere simultaneous, t"en t"ere $ould be no need to cause t"e e33ect anymore. >3t"ey $ere separate in time, t"en t"ere $ould be no direct link bet$een cause and e33ect,and i3 t"at could "appen, t"en anyt"ing could cause anyt"ing else. So t"ose moments o3consciousness cannot really eist as real causes and real e33ects. And t"ey cannot be

directly obser#ed by a %ogi in deep meditation.-- More on t"e immediately preceding condition: sections * and 2'.+.


72/234

91:


73/234

.[ NNN[ '2.[ 8"en t"e Cnon-realC $ould result 3rom t"ose conditioning-causes.[ I"y t"en $ould a product not proceed also 3rom non-causes.

/G8 8A8 HOES!8 MEA! 8A8 8ERE >S !O EFFE68 OR &ROHG68 A8 A99: >t is notbecause t"e product is empty o3 in"erent eistence because depending on empty causesand conditions or empty aggregate+ t"at it is completely non-eistent, useless,meaningless, or 3rom t"e mind only. Ie cannot deny t"e obser#ed regularity, t"eobser#ed dependent origination. Ot"er$ise t"at $ould mean t"at anyt"ing could come outo3 anyt"ing else $it"out any causality at all. 8"at $ould be total c"aos. /ut t"at is not$"at is obser#ed t"ere is regularity t"ere is apparent dependent origination. >t is 5ustt"at t"is s"ould be understood $it"out t"e need 3or any in"erently eisting causes ande33ect.+.

91: S !O 6AGSA9>8% A8 A99: So t"ere is noabsolute in"erent causality, no sure causality, because t"ere are al$ays ot"er causesand conditions, ad in3initum, because all causes and conditions are empty o3 in"erenteistence, and because t"e e33ects are also empty o3 in"erent eistence. /ut t"at doesntmean t"at t"ere is no causal relations at all, t"at all causality is meaningless, useless, 3rom

t"e mind only, and t"at $e s"ould drop e#eryt"ing rig"t no$. All causes, e33ects, causalrelations, are merely imputed by t"e mind, con#entional trut"s, but being t"at t"ey are#ery use3ul and uite e33icient in most cases t"e results o3 sciences and tec"nologies all


74/234

around us is a proo3 o3 t"at, t"e e33iciency o3 t"e /udd"ist pat"s is anot"er proo3.-- So t"ere is no absolute causality, no total absence o3 causality.+.91: !EAR RVSGMV OF SE68>O! ' = O! 6O!H>8>O!S@9B:

internal+, di33erent ot"er-caused, eternal+, bot", or neit"er..-- 1. 8"ere are 3our con#entional types o3 conditioning causes only. ':2+.-- B. A 6AGSE HOES!8 REMA>! 8E SAME 6A!DE 6EASE 6OM&9E8E9%.':1+ A cause cannot remain t"e same, nor c"ange into somet"ing di33erent ot"er-eistence, nor become non-eistent. !ot"ing remains t"e same, or c"ange, in a line or cycle o3 causality. !o continuity discontinuity. !o absolute o$ners"ip responsibility, no total absence o3 o$ners"ip.

.-- . !on-duality o3 t"e 1: on t"e edge bet$een determinism and c"aos. !o e33ectcause $it" or $it"out its o$n causeT. andor causing+ !o primary cause3ree $ill t"at is not an e33ect, no total determinism, !o causee33ect $it" or $it"out its o$n e33ectT. andor causing+ !o absolutely sure cause, no cause $it"out some regular in3luence. also: no causing $it" or $it"out its o$n cause andor conditionT.+ 8"e case o3 moti#e: !o 3ree $ill, no absolute conditioning, but some o3 bot". Sot"ere is samsara, and 9iberation is possible. ':B+.-- ). 8E M>HH9E IA%: bet$een eistence and non-eistence+ 6auses are notcompletely non-eistent eit"er, t"ey eist con#entionally. ':+.-- *. !O REA9 6AGSE 8O 6REA8E OR HES8RO%: 8"ere is no cause o3 a real, non-reale33ect, or bot", or neit"er. !o cause 3or anyt"ing eistent, or non-eistent 3or t"eorigination, trans3ormation or cessation o3 anyt"ing 3or t"e birt", e#olution, or deat" o3any being 3or somet"ing in"erently eisting or empty o3 in"erent eistence. ':)-*+.-- 0. >!SE&ARA/>9>8%, 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E OF 6AGSE EFFE68. 8"e case o3 T t"e senses and t"eir ob5ects are interdependent conceptually,inseparable, one cannot eist $it"out t"e ot"er. ':0+

.-- (. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E non-duality+: cause e33ect cannot besimultaneous or o#erlapping+, nor in seuence separate in time+.


75/234

8"e case o3 t"e preceding consciousness moment. ':(+.9B:

.-- 2. !O8 8E SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: !on-duality: not t$o, not one+ ':''+ 8"e product does not reside in t"e causes indi#idually or collecti#ely, nor outside o3t"e aggregate..-- 1. 8E M>HH9E IA%: E33ects and products are not completely non-eistent or uselesseit"er, t"ey are 5ust con#entional entities. ':'2+.9B: S8E!8 E>8ER: E#en i3 ne#er absolute, t"ey are notcompletely non-eistent, or $it"out any in3luence, or unrelated to t"eir e33ect in similarity,

space and time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed regularity, e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere is not"ing, noe33ect $it"out a cause..


76/234

-- 1. /OG!H9ESS 6A>! OF 6AGSA9>8%: All causes are$ere e33ects all e33ects are$ill-be causes. 8"ere is no 3irst cause, no 3inal e33ect. All e33ect "as"ad an in3inity o3 causesall cause "as$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 e33ect.QSee also net page on t"is..-- B. EM&8>!ESS OF 8E 6AGS>!D, A!H OF 8E EFFE68: >3 t"ere is no absolute causesbecause o3 t"eir o$n causes and conditions, ad in3initum+, t"en t"ere cannot be any

absolute causing, or e33ect. All e33ects and causing causal relations+ are empty becausedependent on empty causes..-- . EFFE68S A!H 6AGS>!D ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8ER: 8"e e33ect and causing+,e#en i3 ne#er absolute, is not completely non-eistent, or unrelated to its cause insimilarity, space and time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed regularity e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere isnot"ing, no cause $it"out an e33ect..-- ). EM&8% ADDREDA8E: >3 no cause is absolute, t"en no aggregate o3 causes andconditions can be absolute eit"er. 8"e product does not reside in t"e causes indi#idually or

collecti#ely, nor is it outside o3 t"e aggregate..-- *. EM&8>!ESS OF HES8RO%>!D: 8"ere is no positi#e causing making somet"ing ne$to appear+, and no negati#e causing making somet"ing to disappear, or not appear, orcausing somet"ing not-real+..-- 0. 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E: All trio - cause, causing and e33ect - are emptybecause conceptually interdependent. One cannot eist $it"out t"e ot"er and t"en 5oin$it" t"e ot"er. !o cause $it" or $it"out e33ect no e33ect $it" or $it"out a cause T Samebet$een t"e #erbcausing and t"e ot"er t$o.

.-- (. !O8 8E SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8 = !O!-HGA9: 8"e cause e33ect causing+cannot be t"e same sel3-causation, internal+, nor di33erent ot"er-causation, eternal+, norbot" toget"er, nor neit"er no cause at all+..-- '?. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E = !O!-HGA9: 8"e cause e33ect cannot bet"e simultaneous o#erlapping at t"e 5unction+, nor separate $it" a gap bet$een t"em+,nor bot", nor neit"er. ere causing is assumed instantaneous..-- ''. EM&8>!ESS OF 8E 8>ME OF 8E 6AGS>!D: So t"e eact time o3 t"e causingcannot be 3ound. 8"e eact time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e e33ect, its origination, cannot be3ound. And i3 t"ere is no real origination o3 t"e e33ect, t"en t"ere is no possible cessation,and no possible duration o3 t"e e33ect. As 3or t"e origination, duration and cessation o3 aKlongerL causing, see section 2..-- '2. EM&8>!ESS OF 8E 8REE 8>MES: So t"ere is no real be3ore i+, during ii+ anda3ter iii+ t"e causing, or origination o3 t"e e33ect, since t"is point in time does not reallyeist. And i3 t"is point is empty, "o$ could t"ere be cause be3ore, causing during, ande33ect a3ter Or e#en cause be3ore, during and a3ter I"at $e call cause, e33ect andcausing are establis"ed con#entionally a3ter t"e 3act..

-- '1. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8%: !o t"ing cause+ remain t"e same by goingt"roug" t"e causing process in"erent eistence+, nor c"ange into somet"ing completelydi33erent ot"er eistence+, nor cease completely non-eistence+. 8"e cause be3ore i+,


77/234

during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e causing is not t"e same, nor di33erent. 8"e same 3or t"ee33ect and t"e causing.+.-- 'B. 8E M>HH9E IA%: So $e s"ould stay a$ay 3rom t"e 3our etreme p"ilosop"icalpositions in regard to causes, e33ects, causal relations, causal lines or cycles, causality anddependent origination in general.

.91: !ES 6%69ES OF 6AGSA9>8%@.-- '. /OG!H9ESS 6A>! OF 6AGSA9>8%: All causes are$ere e33ects all e33ects are$ill-be causes. 8"ere is no 3irst cause, no 3inal e33ect. All e33ect "as"ad an in3inity o3 causesall cause "as$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 e33ect..-- 2. A !E8IOR4 OF MA!% 8O MA!% EA6 8>ME: Eac" time T-- -- a. /A64: Eac" e33ect is immediately depending on an in3inity o3 causes and

conditions. /ut $e con#entionally designate one cause Kt"e primary causeL.-- -- b. FORIARH: Eac" cause is immediately in3luencing an in3inity o3 ot"er t"ingssimultaneously. /ut $e con#entionally designate one Kt"e primary e33ectL.-- -- c. So anytime anyt"ing is at t"e con#ergence o3 an in3inity o3 causes and conditions,and t"e starting point o3 an in3inity o3 in3luences. /ut $e usually concentrate on one causebe3ore, one e33ect a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"er conditionsL and Kside e33ectsL.-- -- d. More so, t"is net$ork o3 in3inite causes con#erging on one t"ing, and t"e 3anningout o3 t"e net$ork o3 discrete in3luences on ot"er t"ings are 5ust like an illusion. 8"ere iscausality and in3luence but not"ing discrete, no indi#idual t"ings cause, e33ect or relation+in it. Ie are t"e ones $"o are gi#ing names to small s$irls in t"e middle o3 an ocean.

.-- 1. 8E >HEA OF 9>!ES A!H 6%69ES OF 6AGSES EFFE68S:-- -- a. 9>!ES OF 6AGSA9>8%:-- -- -- i. /A64: 8"e e33ect "as a cause t"is cause "ad its cause t"is cause "ad its causeT ad in3initum. Eac" e33ect is t"e result o3 an in3inity o3 causes successi#ely in line. Iemig"t call t"is t"e line o3 past causality, or o3 past causes. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e canuse one to one causality.-- -- -- ii. FORIARH: 8"e cause "as its e33ect t"is e33ect $ill "a#e its e33ect t"is e33ect$ill "a#e its e33ectT ad in3initum. Eac" cause $ill result in an in3inity o3 e33ectssuccessi#ely in line. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.-- -- -- iii. So $e usually concentrate on a one-to-one-causality along t"is linear seuenceo3 e#ents: one cause be3ore, one e33ect a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"er minor conditionsLand Kside e33ectsL t"en $e go to t"e net step.-- -- -- i#. /ut $e "a#e no #alid absolute basis to concentrate on only one cause and onee33ect at eac" step, or to concentrate on only one line o3 causality, because eac" step is atbest a many to many point or a mist o3 causes producing a mist o3 e33ects, or e#en 5ustan apparent t"ing in t"e middle o3 an empty luminous space T-- -- b. EUAM&9ES:-- -- -- i. >t is t"e same t"ing $it" cycles o3 causes and e33ects like $it" t"e '2 steps ont"e I"eel o3 9i3e. Ie concentrate on one cause, one e33ect at a time, e#en i3 eac" point ist"e con#ergence o3 an in3inity o3 causes and conditions, and t"e point o3 origin o3 an

in3inity o3 in3luence. More so, t"e $"ole cycle is t"oug"t as being somet"ing real.-- -- -- ii. And i3 t"e cycle can go one $ay, $"y $ould it not go t"e ot"er $ay around.One mig"t t"ink t"at i3 "e could control one part o3 t"e cycle, t"en one $ould be able to


78/234

control t"e $"ole cycle, or re#erse it, or to make it stop. /ut t"at is 5ust an illusion basedon t"e idea o3 in"erent causes, e33ects, and causal links.-- -- -- iii. >t is t"e same t"ing $it" t"e stream o3 consciousness: some t"ink t"ere is aseries o3 discrete moments o3 consciousness 3orming a continuous line o3 causes ande33ects, and t"at t"e rest are 5ust ot"er conditions or side e33ects. More so, t"e $"ole lineo3 causality stream o3 consciousness+ is t"oug"t as being somet"ing real by itsel3,

somet"ing to Kpuri3yL or K9iberateL.-- -- -- i#. 8"e sel3 is also like t"at. Ie t"ink t"ere is a continuity eit"er a permanentcause, or a permanent indi#idual stream..-- B. D9O/A9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E:-- -- a. Eac" e33ect is dependent on e#eryt"ing else eac" cause "as in3luence one#eryt"ing else.-- -- b. E#eryt"ing is interdependent $it" e#eryt"ing else.-- -- c. 8"ere is no o$ners"ip, no real net$ork o3 discrete relations, no real lines orstreams, no real cycle o3 causes and e33ects.

.

92:


79/234

#erbgoing is assumed to last and is $it" #isible acti#ity and displacement. So t"ere isdiscussion about t"e origination, duration and cessation o3 t"e going action "ere.+.91:

t"e goer going ii+, and t"e resulting goer iii+ are not t"e same, not di33erent.+.9B:


80/234

process discernable by its #isible acti#ity. >n t"is t"ere are t$o problems: t"e problem o3t"e real going process discernable by its #isible acti#ity in a goer actually-going ii+, andt"e problem o3 t"e sub5ect being di33erent be3ore i+, during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e going.idden in t"is is also t"e problem o3 t"e origination and cessation o3 t"is acti#ity, or o3 t"isreal going process, used as an absolute re3erence points in time t"e de3inition o3 time isdepending on it.+

.91: t doesnt start in t"e goer actually-going ii+ since "e is ob#iouslyalready going -- t"e #isible acti#ity, and t"e #isible displacement are already in progress.And it doesnt start in t"e goer be3ore going i+, nor in t"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+. So $ecannot 3ind t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity displacement in any o3 t"e t"ree times o3

t"e goer. So "o$ do $e kno$ $"en t"e goer is actually going I"ere is t"e proo3 o3 realacti#ity displacement, real going process, real actions.+.9:


81/234

[


82/234

.[ NNN[ 0.[ 8"e CgoerC does not go mo#e+[ conseuently a Cnon-goerC certainly does not go mo#e+.[ I"at t"ird t also means t"at t"e going is not in"erently eisting.+.

9B:


83/234

[ >3 t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+, t"en t$o acts o3 going #isible acti#ity displacement+ t doesnt start $it" t"e goer a3ter t"egoing iii+ since "e is not going anymore it doesnt start in t"e goer be3ore going i+ since"e is not going yet it doesnt start $it" t"e goer actually-going ii+ since "e is alreadygoing. Ie cannot 3ind t"e beginning o3 t"is supposedly in"erent going action.-- 8"e origination o3 t"e action is not caused by t"e resulting goer iii+, nor by t"e initialgoer i+ nor by t"e goer going ii+.+.9:


84/234

t"e #isible acti#ity displacement = so t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity displacementis not $it" t"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+. 8"ere is no #isible acti#ity displacement in t"egoer be3ore going i+ = so t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity displacement is not $it"t"e goer be3ore going i+.-- > t"ink t"e problem "ere is t"at t"e t"ree times i, ii, iii+ relati#e to t"e origination andcessation o3 t"e supposedly directly obser#able acti#ity and displacement cannot really be

de3ined since $e cannot 3ind t"e eact moment o3 t"e origination and cessation. And #ice#ersa, t"e eact time o3 t"e origination and cessation cannot be deduced 3rom t"ose t"reegoers be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action+ since t"eir o$n limits cannot be 3ound. 8"eproblem o3 t"e origination and cessation $ill be in#estigated 3urt"er in section *. 8"eproblem o3 t"e t"ree times $ill be analyed 3urt"er in section '(T--I"o $ould be t"e cause o3 t"e origination o3 t"e acti#ity: 8"e goer going ii+ doesnteist be3ore t"e origination t"e resulting goer iii+ doesnt eist at t"e origination t"einitial goer cannot be t"e cause o3 t"e origination eit"er..9: n 3act $e see t"at t"ose 3our conceptsare de3ined on eac" ot"er and t"at t"ere is no absolute basis to really pro#e t"eireistence.-- 8"ose t"ree -- t"e initial goer i+, t"e goer going ii+, and t"e resulting goer iii+ -- aremental 3abrications and cannot be used 3ind or pro#e t"e origination. And i3 t"ere is noorigination, t"ere cannot be any cessation, nor duration.+.9B: !D >+ A!H OF KREMA>!>!D G!MOEHL: 8"egoer be3ore t"e going is not going yet, so "e is not a real goer t"at is not going yet, not agoer remaining unmo#ed. /ut t"at doesnt mean t"at "e is completely non-eisting eit"er,


85/234

or t"at "e is a non-goer remaining unmo#ed. 8"e sub5ect o3 Kremaining unmo#edL is not agoer, not a non-goer, not bot", not neit"er. 8"is sub5ect is empty o3 in"erent eistence,but not completely non-eistent. Since t"ere is no real sub5ect, t"ere cannot be any realKremaining unmo#edL. So t"e Kremaining unmo#edL is also empty o3 in"erent eistence.-- 8"e initial goer i+ moti#e is not in"erently eisting, not completely non-eisting. 8"isinitial goer i+ is not eistent, not non-eistent, not bot", not neit"er. And i3 t"ere is no

sub5ect, t"en t"e Kremaining unmo#edL is also empty.+.9: n s"ort, t"e t"ree states o3 t"e goer be3ore, during and a3ter t"e going, are all empty o3in"erent eistence, but not completely non-eistent eit"er. So it is not t"e same goer int"e t"ree times, not is it somet"ing completely di33erent eac" time. 8"ere is no goer, ornon-goer, remaining at rest i+, going ii+, coming to rest iii+.+.9:


86/234

interdependence.Maybe: !ot"ing is not-going. 8"e goer be3ore going is not not-going t"e goer going is notnot-going t"e goer a3ter going is not not-going. >3 t"ere $as a real not-going, t"en at t"etransition bet$een going and not-going t"at $ould be simultaneous origination andcessation. Maybe t"is $ill become more clear $it" c"apter * on origination and cessation.= >3 cause e33ect $ere o#erlapping t"ere $ould be origination and cessation at t"e same

time.--8"e resulting goer iii+ at t"e destination+.9B: !SE&ARA/>9>8% OF SG/JE68DOER A!H ER/DO>!D: not t"e same, not di33erent: 8"esub5ect and #erb-action are not in"erently eisting and t"en broug"t toget"er during t"e#isible acti#ity displacement. 8"ey cannot eist independently o3 eac" ot"er. 8"ey areinseparable: not t"e same, not di33erent or separate, not not t$o, not one.+.9: 3 t"e goer and t"e goingaction $ere separate di33erent@.[ NNN[ 2?.[ Alternati#ely, i3 t"e CgoerC is di33erent 3rom t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - - realgoing process+,[ 8"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible acti#ity displacement+ $ould eist $it"outt"e CgoerC[ and t"e CgoerC $ould eist $it"out t"e Cact o3 going.C #isible acti#ity displacement+.

SG/JE68 A!H A68>O! 6A!!O8 /E H>FFERE!8 OR SE&ARA8E: !or can t"e sub5ect andt"e action be totally separate, di33erent. Ot"er$ise $e $ould "a#e a sub5ect $it"out any#isible acti#ity displacement, or #isible acti#ity displacement $it"out any sub5ect. Or a


87/234

person $it"out any karma, or karma $it"out any person.+.91:

[ because t"ere is no prior Cprocess o3 goingC. gati - real going process+[ >ndeed someone goes some$"ere..8E >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E OF 8E 8REE: SG/JE68, ER/, 6OM&9EME!8: 8"e goer,going and destination are interdependent de3initions or concepts. !one o3 t"em can eistalone independently o3 t"e ot"er t$o. So t"ey are all empty o3 in"erent eistence becauseinterdependent, but t"at doesnt mean t"at t"ey are completely non-eistent eit"er. 8"eyare 5ust ne#er absolute.+.9B: O! >S !O8 >!ERE!89% EU>S8E!8, !O8 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8E>8ER: >3 t"e sub5ect-action and its complement $ere t$o in"erently eisting t"ings,

t"ere $ould be t$o actions, and t$o destinations.+.91:


88/234

9B: S8E!8, !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8, !O8 /O8,!O8 !E>8ER. First, bot" t"e goer moti#ating, and its moti#ated actions like going, arenot eistent, not non-eistent, not bot", not neit"er. All t"e BB combinations o3 t"ose areimpossible. 8"ere is no goer $it" or $it"out a going no going $it" or $it"out a goer.8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. >3 $e $ere to include t"e

ob5ectcomplement t"ere $ould be BBB combinations to eamine all impossible. 8"emeaning is t"at none o3 t"ose 3our etreme p"ilosop"ical positions can describe reality:$orld mind.Empty moti#e -- W empty actions -- W empty ob5ects: Second, by re3ormulating t"eproblem o3 t"e duality Kgoer goingL as t"e trio Kgoer-moti#e, moti#ating, going-actionL, itis demonstrated t"at t"e tec"niue and conclusions o3 section ', on Kcause, causing,e33ectL, can be applied "ere T and #ice #ersa = t"e t$o tec"niues are complementary.8"e cause is t"e moti#e, t"e e33ect is t"e action moti#ated. >n t"at sense it is t"econtinuation o3 t"e case o3 Kmoti#eL as a primary cause as co#ered by #erses ':B-*.Section ' s"o$ed t"at e#en Kmoti#eL is an empty cause because dependent on its o$n

empty causes and conditions. Section 2, s"o$s t"at all actions caused by t"is emptymoti#e are also empty o3 in"erent eistence. Also, all ob5ects o3 t"eses actions are alsoempty o3 in"erent eistence, like t"e case o3 t"e destination "ere..9B: O! = !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8% OF A /E>!D MO8>A8>!DA68>O!S: >n s"ort, t"ere is no permanent person same+ moti#ating real $"olesome orun$"olesome+ actions, and being c"anged by t"ose actions like accumulating karma orconditioning+, nor is "e c"anging into a completely di33erent person a di33erent personsu33ering because o3 t"e 3irst+. 8"e moti#ator goer+ doesnt stay t"e same be3ore duringand a3ter, nor is "e di33erent, not is "e ceasing completely. 8"e moti#atormoti#e is empty,t"e actions moti#ated are empty, t"e ob5ects o3 t"ose actions are empty. Empty o3

in"erent eistence but also not completely non-eistent, not bot", not neit"er, as seen int"e pre#ious #erse. 8"e $"ole c"ain is composed o3 co-dependently arisen concepts,ne#er absolute, but could be uite use3ul is used $it" $isdom.


89/234

.!ote: 8"e tec"niues o3 t"e t$o 3irst sections are eui#alent and could be apply to anyaction. 8"e 3orm o3 section ' Ksub5ect causing e33ect-actionL makes more e#ident t"eemptiness o3 t"e sub5ect and t"e inseparability o3 sub5ect ob5ect-action. 8"e 3orm o3section 2 Ksub5ect #erb-action ob5ectL makes more e#ident t"e non-arising o3 t"e #erb-action, and t"e 3act t"at t"e sub5ect is not t"e same nor di33erent because o3 t"e action.

So tec"niue 2 could be used to analye t"e arising o3 an e33ect, and t"e 3act t"at t"esub5ect is not t"e same, not di33erent $it" t"e coming o3 t"e e33ect = t"ere is a 3eedbacklike $it" karma, but it is not absolute.+.

91: O! 2 = O! 6A!DE [email protected] '. A DOER HOES!8 REMA>! 8E SAME 6A!DE I>9E DO>!D 6EASE6OM&9E8E9%. A goer cannot remain t"e same all along, nor c"ange into somet"ingdi33erent ot"er-eistence, nor become non-eistent. 8"e goer going is not t"e same, nor

di33erent be3ore, during ii+ and a3ter. 8"ere3ore t"ere is no real going t"at $ould make"im di33erent. 2:'+.-- 2. Opponent: 8"e goer actually going ii+ is di33erent because o3 "is added #isibleacti#ity displacement, $"ic" is proo3 o3 t"e occurrence o3 a real going process a realaction karma+ moti#ated by a real goer. 2:2+.9B: HH9E IA% A/OG8 8E DOER: A goer going ii+ is not in"erently eistingsince "e cannot eist $it"out a going+ "e is not completely non-eistent eit"ersomebody is going+ "e is 5ust not absolute. 2:*-0+ Section ': t"e sub5ect moti#e isempty because dependent on its o$n causes and conditions, and interdependent $it" itse33ects actions+..-- 1. 8E EM&8>!ESS OF DO>!D: An empty goer cannot really go so t"ere is no realin"erent going. A real going $ould mean t"at t"ere could be a goer $it"out a going, t"ent"ere $ould be t$o acts o3 going. So t"e duality Kgoer goesL is 3la$ed since one cannoteist $it"out t"e ot"er. 2:(-''+ Also, t"e #isible acti#ity displacement o3 a goingprocess can "ardly be used to pro#e t"e di33erence in a goer be3ore, during and a3ter t"egoing action, since its o$n origination cannot be directly obser#ed or pro#ed. 2:'2+.9B:


90/234

eistent or useless eit"er, 5ust ne#er absolute. 2:'+ 8"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+ is notin"erently eisting, not completely non-eistent or useless eit"er, 5ust ne#er absolute.2 :')+ 8"ere is no permanent goer coming 3rom any o3 t"e t"ree times i, ii, iii+. 2:'*+.-- 2. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8% OF 8E DOER: !on-duality: not t$o, notone+ So t"ere is no permanent goer t"at eist and c"ange $it" t"e going, nor is "e

c"anging into t"ree di33erent in"erent t"ings. 2:'0+.9B: !A8>O!: 8"ere is no independent destination it isinterdependent $it" t"e process o3 going, and $it" t"e goer. 8"us it is not in"erentlyeistent, nor completely non-eistent. 2:22-21+.9B: !GA8>O! OF 8E 6ASE OF KMO8>EL: So t"e moti#edoer is empty, t"eactions moti#ated are empty, t"e ob5ects o3 t"eses actions are empty. All are not eistent,not non-eistent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"ey are co-dependently arisen concepts, notabsolute, but use3ul..>n s"ort, t"ere is no 3ree permanent person same+ moti#ating real $"olesome orun$"olesome+ actions, and being c"anged by t"ose actions like accumulating karma orconditioning+, nor is "e c"anged into a completely di33erent person a di33erent personsu33ering+. 8"e action $e imagine is a mist o3 3uy e33ects caused by an in3inity o3 emptycauses and conditions ne#er indi#idual or absolute, but not 3rom t"e mind only eit"er.!ot"ing eist and c"ange..91: nitial-goeri+moti#e -- W goer goingii+ -- W [email protected] '. EM&8>!ESS OF DOERMO8>E: All goersi+ moti#e are empty because t"ey "a#et"eir o$n initial-goersi+ and conditions no in"erent, absolute, permanent, independent'??\ 3ree+, or primary goer moti#e no possible essence o3 action coming 3rom t"egoers moti#e. !o absolute 3ree $ill. '+

.-- 2. DOERSMO8>E ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8ER: E#en i3 ne#er absolute, t"ey arenot completely non-eistent, or $it"out any in3luence, or unrelated to t"eir moti#ated


91/234

results in similarity, space time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed relations. 8"ere is no resulting-goer c"ange, action+ $it"out a goer moti#e..-- 1. /OG!H9ESS 6A>! OF 6A!DE MOEME!8: All initial-goersi+ moti#e are$ereresulting-goeriii+ all resulting-goers are$ill-be initial-goers. !o 3irst goermoti#e, no 3inalgoerdestination. !o 3irst positionstate, no 3inal positionstate 3or anyt"ing or anybody.

.-- B. A F9OI I>8OG8 A!% >!H>>HGA9>8% >! >8: Eac" resulting-goeriii+ "as"ad anin3inity o3 initial-goersi+ in time+, and ot"er causes and conditions eac" time isdependent on e#eryt"ing else. Eac" initial-goeri+ "as$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 resulting-goersiii+ in time+, and in3luence many t"ings eac" time+ "as in3luence on e#eryt"ingelse. Eac" initial-goeri+ is doing a multitude o3 goingactions simultaneously eac" onerelati#e to a di33erent t"ing+ and eac" actions are done by a multitude o3 agentssimultaneously. 8"ere is no o$ners"ip..-- . EM&8>!ESS OF 8E A68>O!, A!H OF 8E RESG98: >3 t"ere is no absolute

goeri+moti#e because o3 its o$n causes and conditions+, t"en t"ere cannot be anygoingii+action, or absolute resulting-goeriii+ destination. All resulting-goers iii+ andgoing all actions+ are empty because dependent on empty initial-goers i+ moti#e..-- ). RESG98>!D-DOERS A!H DO>!D A68>O!S+ ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8ER: 8"eresulting-goer iii+ and goingaction+, e#en i3 ne#er absolute, is not completely non-eistent, or unrelated to its initial-goeri+ moti#e in similarity, space and time. 8"ere is t"eobser#ed regularity e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere is no initial-goeri+ moti#e $it"out aresulting-goer iii+ or action..

-- *. EM&8% ADDREDA8E: >3 no initial-goeri+ moti#e is absolute, an aggregate o3 causeand conditions including it cannot be absolute eit"er. 8"e product does not reside in t"ecauses indi#idually or collecti#ely, nor outside o3 t"e aggregate..-- 0. EM&8>!ESS OF !O8-DO>!DS8O&&>!D!O8-HO>!D: 8"ere is no positi#egoingaction, and no negati#e goingaction remaining unmo#ed or stopping+..-- (. 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E: All trio = goer i+, goingii+ acting anddestination resulting-goer iii+ - are empty because conceptually interdependent. Onecannot eist $it"out t"e ot"er, but t"ey are ne#er absolute. !o initial-goeri+moti#e $it"or $it"out a resulting-goeriii+ destination no resulting-goeriii+ destination $it" or$it"out an initial-goeri+ moti#e T !o initial-goeri+moti#e $it" or $it"out a goingii+acting no goingii+ acting $it" or $it"out an initial-goeri+ moti#e. Same bet$een #erband complement..-- '?. !O8 8E SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: 8"e goer be3ore, during a3ter are not t"esame sel3-mo#ement+, not di33erent ot"er-mo#ement+, nor bot" toget"er, nor neit"erno initial-goeri+ moti#e at all+..-- ''. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E: 8"e goer be3ore, during a3ter adisplacement cannot be t"e simultaneous or o#erlapping at t"e 5unctions+, not separate

$it" gaps+. 8"e eact time o3 t"e beginning and ending o3 t"e going action, itsorigination and cessation, cannot be 3ound = so t"ere cannot be duration eit"er..


92/234

-- '2. EM&8>!ESS OF 8E 8REE 8>MES: So t"ere is no real be3ore i+, during ii+ anda3ter iii+ t"e going action, since t"ese points in time do not really eist. So, t"e t"reegoers be3ore, during and a3ter t"e going actions are also empty..-- '1. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8%: !o goer remain t"e same by going t"roug"t"e goingaction process in"erent eistence+, nor c"ange into somet"ing completely

di33erent ot"er eistence+, nor cease completely non-eistence+. 8"e goer be3ore i+,during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e goingaction is not t"e same, nor di33erent. 8"e same 3or t"ee33ect and t"e causing.+.-- 'B. 8E M>HH9E IA%: So $e s"ould stay a$ay 3rom t"e 3our etreme p"ilosop"icalpositions in regard to causes, e33ects, causal relations, causal lines or cycles, causality anddependent origination in general..91: ME: Eac" time T-- -- a. /ack: Eac" resulting-goeriii+ is immediately depending on an in3inity o3 causesand conditions. /ut $e con#entionally designate one cause Kt"e initial-goeri+, t"e

immediately preceding conditionL, like i3 t"ere $as a continuity o3 somet"ing.-- -- b. For$ard: Eac" initial-goeri+is immediately in3luencing an in3inity o3 ot"er t"ingssimultaneously. /ut $e con#entionally designate one Kt"e resulting-goeriii+, t"eimmediately 3ollo$ing e33ectL, like i3 t"ere $as a continuity o3 somet"ing.-- -- c. So anytime anyt"ing is at t"e con#ergence o3 an in3inity o3 causes and conditions,and t"e starting point o3 an in3inity o3 in3luences. /ut $e usually concentrate on one causebe3ore, one e33ect a3ter, t"e continuity o3 a goer, and call t"e rest Kot"er conditionsL andKside e33ectsL.-- -- d. More so, t"is net$ork o3 in3inite c"anging-causes con#erging on one goert"ing,and t"e 3anning out o3 t"e net$ork o3 discrete in3luences on ot"er t"ings are 5ust like anillusion. 8"ere is causality, in3luence, c"ange, mo#ement but not"ing discrete, noindi#idual t"ings initial-goer, resulting-goer or mo#ementc"ange+ in it. Ie are t"e ones$"o are gi#ing names to small s$irls in t"e middle o3 an ocean and 3ollo$ing t"eirKe#olutionL..-- 1. 8E >HEA OF 9>!ES A!H 6%69ES OF 6AGSES EFFE68S:-- -- a. 9>!ES OF 6AGSA9>8%:-- -- -- i. /ack: 8"e resulting-goer "as a initial-goer t"is initial-goer "ad its initial-goert"is initial-goer "ad its initial-goer T ad in3initum. Eac" resulting-goer is t"e result o3 anin3inity o3 initial-goers successi#ely in line. Ie mig"t call t"is t"e line o3 past states o3 t"esame goer. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.

-- -- -- ii. For$ard: 8"e initial-goer "as its resulting-goer t"is resulting-goer $ill "a#e itsresulting-goer t"is resulting-goer $ill "a#e its resulting-goerT ad in3initum. Eac" initial-goer $ill result in an in3inity o3 resulting-goers successi#ely in line. 9ike i3 it $as t"e same


93/234

goer all t"e time and t"at all ot"er causes and conditions are pus"ed to a secondary role.All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.-- -- -- iii. So $e usually concentrate on t"e continuity o3 somet"ing some-being alongt"is linear seuence o3 e#ents: one being be3ore, one being a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"erminor conditionsL and Kside e33ectsL t"en $e go to t"e net step.-- -- -- i#. /ut $e "a#e no #alid absolute basis to concentrate on only one cause and one

e33ect at eac" step, or to concentrate on t"e continuity o3 a goer, because eac" step is atbest a many to many point or a mist o3 causes producing a mist o3 e33ects, or e#en 5ustan apparent t"ing in t"e middle o3 an empty luminous space T-- -- b. EUAM&9ES:-- -- -- i. >t is t"e case $it" mo#ement, $e t"ink t"ere is an ob5ect, or being, mo#ing t"atis t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e mo#ement. eit is not di33erent eit"er.-- -- -- ii. >t is t"e case $it" c"ange, $e t"ink t"ere is an ob5ect, or being, c"anging t"atis t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e c"ange. !ot di33erent eit"er.-- -- -- iii. >t is t"e case $it" action, $e t"ink t"ere is a being, moti#ating and acting t"atis t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action acuisition o3 karma. e is not di33erent

eit"er.-- -- -- i#. >t is t"e case $it" rebirt", $e t"ink t"ere is a being "a#ing rebirt" t"at is t"esame be3ore, during and a3ter t"e rebirt". e is not di33erent eit"er.-- -- -- #. >t is t"e case $it" consciousness or perception, $e t"ink t"ere is a being "a#ingperception t"at is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e perception or consciousness.eit is not di33erent eit"er.-- -- -- #i. 8"e sel3 is also like t"at. Ie t"ink t"ere is a continuity eit"er a permanentcause, or a permanent indi#idual stream. !ot di33erent eit"er..-- B. D9O/A9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E:

-- -- a. Eac" being is dependent on all ot"er beings eac" being "as in3luence on all ot"erbeings.-- -- b. All beings are interdependent $it" all ot"er beings.-- -- c. 8"ere is no o$ners"ip, no real net$ork o3 discrete relations, no real lines orstreams, no real cycle o3 causes and e33ects..

9':


94/234

.[ NNN[ '.[ ision, "earing, smelling, tasting, touc"ing and t"oug"t[ Are t"e si sense 3aculties.[ 8"e area o3 t"eir concern is t"at $"ic" is seen RM>!D H>RE68 &ER6E&8>O!, A!H A! >!HE&E!HE!8 IOR9H: 8"e opponent issaying t"at t"e 3ollo$ing trio: sense organs, percei#ing, ob5ects o3 perception eternal$orld, are all real. e is saying t"at t"ose t"ree are in"erently eisting, and t"at t"ere isob5ecti#e direct perception o3 an eternal independent $orld by true impartial senseorgans and consciousnesses.+.91:

[ 2.[ 6ertainly #ision does not in any $ay see its o$n sel3.[ !o$ i3 it does not see its o$n sel3, "o$ can it possibly see somet"ing else.!O H>RE68 &ER6E&8>O! OF 8E E%E /% 8E E%E: >3 direct perception $as possible, i3t"ere $as true perception o3 t"e essence o3 an ob5ect $"ile seeing it, Ki3 t"e nature o3 allt"ings 3irst appears in t"emsel#esL, t"en t"e eye $ould be able to see itsel3. /ut t"at isnot t"e case. So direct perception o3 t"e ob5ect is not possible. And t"is applies to t"e sisenses.+.

[ NNN[ 1.[ An understanding o3 #ision is not attained t"roug" t"e eample o3

Documents

46695163-Mulamadhyamakakarikas-and-Vigrahavyavartani-by-Nargarjuna.pdf