Quotation
Last reviewed:
“There is not the slightest difference between cyclic existence and nirvana. There is not the slightest difference between nirvana and cyclic existence.”
Nāgārjuna · Madhyamaka · Ancient · c. 2nd–3rd century CE
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading says that samsara and nirvana are not two independently existing realms. Whatever is dependently arisen is empty, and nirvana is not a separate non-empty place you travel to. A competing reading hears the verse as a shrug, as if bondage and freedom were the same mood. He is refusing a metaphysical difference, a difference of inherent nature, not the ordinary difference between suffering and its end. The verse is Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25.19. The repetition is his. Chapter 25 examines nirvana after chapter 24 has identified emptiness with dependent arising. If nothing has its own nature, then the goal cannot be a thing with its own nature either. That is the shock. It is still a Buddhist argument about liberation, which is why the shrug is the misreading.
Did Nāgārjuna really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. Verse 25.19 of the Root Verses, in the chapter on nirvana. The English follows Garfield, including the repetition, which is in the verse. It is not a claim that suffering does not matter, and it is not 24.18.
Where it comes from
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25.19, following Jay L. Garfield
Approximate date: c. 2nd–3rd century CE.
How to use it
A retreat advert that quotes the verse as 'everyday life is already enlightenment, so stay as you are' has kept the denial of a gap and dropped the analysis. He is not recommending complacency. He is saying the goal is not another inherently real object. A practice that changes greed and confusion is compatible with the verse. A practice that quotes it in order to stop is not the chapter.
A mindset reading
Ask what kind of difference he is denying. Inherent existence is the target. The habit keeps a real practical difference, between a harmful pattern and its quieting, from being confused with a metaphysical distance between two realms.
Understand the philosophy
Chapter 25 discusses nirvana. Verse 19 is the statement that there is no slightest difference of the relevant kind between samsara and nirvana. Garfield's translation keeps the repetition. The verse depends on the emptiness argument of chapter 24, including 24.18 and 24.19, which are separate cards. It is not a positive description of a hidden world.
- meaning
- freedom
FAQ
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading says that samsara and nirvana are not two independently existing realms. Whatever is dependently arisen is empty, and nirvana is not a separate non-empty place you travel to. A competing reading hears the verse as a shrug, as if bondage and freedom were the same mood. He is refusing a metaphysical difference, a difference of inherent nature, not the ordinary difference between suffering and its end. The verse is Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25.19. The repetition is his. Chapter 25 examines nirvana after chapter 24 has identified emptiness with dependent arising. If nothing has its own nature, then the goal cannot be a thing with its own nature either. That is the shock. It is still a Buddhist argument about liberation, which is why the shrug is the misreading.
Did Nāgārjuna really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. Verse 25.19 of the Root Verses, in the chapter on nirvana. The English follows Garfield, including the repetition, which is in the verse. It is not a claim that suffering does not matter, and it is not 24.18.
Which work is it in?
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25.19, following Jay L. Garfield Approximate date: c. 2nd–3rd century CE.