Quotation
Last reviewed:
“Not from itself, not from another, not from both, and not without a cause: nowhere and never does any existing thing arise.”
Nāgārjuna · Madhyamaka · Ancient · c. 2nd–3rd century CE
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading is a fourfold refusal of how things could arise. Not from themselves, or the cause would be the effect. Not from something wholly other, or there would be no connection. Not from both, and not from no cause at all. A competing reading hears a denial that anything happens, which the rest of the book rejects: dependent things function, they just do not arise by any of these four routes as if they had an independent birth. The verse is Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1, the opening. Verse 24.18, already here, says that whatever arises dependently is emptiness. Chapter 1 is the argument that production, in the ordinary philosophical senses, does not survive analysis. Emptiness, later, is the name of that result. Garfield's English is the translation followed. It is a translation.
Did Nāgārjuna really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. The opening verse of the Root Verses on the Middle Way, chapter 1. The English follows Jay L. Garfield's translation. Sanskrit and Tibetan wording is the source. This is not verse 24.18, already in the library.
Where it comes from
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1, in the translation tradition of Jay L. Garfield
Approximate date: c. 2nd–3rd century CE.
How to use it
A report that says a policy 'caused itself' or 'came from nowhere' has picked one of the four options he says fails. Ask which kind of arising is being claimed. The verse will not choose a cause for a local problem. It will stop a causal story that cannot say how the effect is related to whatever it names.
A mindset reading
The four options are meant to feel exhaustive and then to fail. The habit is to notice when a real explanation is being asked to be one of those four metaphysical births. Dependent arising, his own picture, is the alternative the later chapters defend, not a fifth slogan in this verse.
Understand the philosophy
Chapter 1 of the Root Verses examines conditions. The key claim of the first verse is that arising in any of the four ways does not occur. Garfield's 1995 translation is the English used here. Chapter 24, verse 18, is the identification of dependent arising with emptiness and is already a card. The two verses are the start and a late summary, not duplicates.
- knowledge
- change
FAQ
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading is a fourfold refusal of how things could arise. Not from themselves, or the cause would be the effect. Not from something wholly other, or there would be no connection. Not from both, and not from no cause at all. A competing reading hears a denial that anything happens, which the rest of the book rejects: dependent things function, they just do not arise by any of these four routes as if they had an independent birth. The verse is Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1, the opening. Verse 24.18, already here, says that whatever arises dependently is emptiness. Chapter 1 is the argument that production, in the ordinary philosophical senses, does not survive analysis. Emptiness, later, is the name of that result. Garfield's English is the translation followed. It is a translation.
Did Nāgārjuna really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. The opening verse of the Root Verses on the Middle Way, chapter 1. The English follows Jay L. Garfield's translation. Sanskrit and Tibetan wording is the source. This is not verse 24.18, already in the library.
Which work is it in?
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1, in the translation tradition of Jay L. Garfield Approximate date: c. 2nd–3rd century CE.