Quotation
Last reviewed:
“Something that is not dependently arisen does not exist. Therefore a non-empty thing does not exist.”
Nāgārjuna · Madhyamaka · Ancient · c. 2nd–3rd century CE
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading is the consequence of identifying emptiness with dependent arising. If only the dependently arisen exists, then a thing that was non-empty, a thing with its own independent nature, does not exist. A competing reading, the one the chapter is answering, says this wipes out the Buddhist path, because a path needs real things to abandon and real results to gain. He thinks the opposite. Only because there is no independent thing can change, teaching, and liberation work. The verse is 24.19, one verse after the line already in this library. It is the negative corollary. 24.18 says what emptiness is. This verse says what does not exist if that identification holds. Garfield's English is the guide. The Sanskrit verse is the source.
Did Nāgārjuna really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. The verse immediately after 24.18. The English follows Garfield. It draws the consequence of the previous verse, which is already in this library, and it is not a repeat of that verse.
Where it comes from
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24.19, following Jay L. Garfield
Approximate date: c. 2nd–3rd century CE.
How to use it
A job title treated as if it would still be there with no employer, no task, and no language is the kind of non-empty thing the verse says does not exist. The Tuesday shift can still be real in the ordinary way. What fails is the idea that the role has a nature of its own underneath the dependencies. The verse is a metaphysical claim, not a reason to skip the shift.
A mindset reading
Hear 'non-empty' as 'existing independently'. The habit stops the slide from this verse to 'nothing is there'. He has just said that the dependently arisen is what there is. The independent extra is what he says is absent.
Understand the philosophy
Verse 24.19 is the immediate sequel to 24.18. The key inference is from universal dependent arising to the absence of anything non-empty. Chapter 24 is his reply to the charge of nihilism. The opening verse of chapter 1 is the analysis of arising that this late pair relies on. All three are translations of verses, not a modern summary written over them.
- knowledge
- meaning
FAQ
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading is the consequence of identifying emptiness with dependent arising. If only the dependently arisen exists, then a thing that was non-empty, a thing with its own independent nature, does not exist. A competing reading, the one the chapter is answering, says this wipes out the Buddhist path, because a path needs real things to abandon and real results to gain. He thinks the opposite. Only because there is no independent thing can change, teaching, and liberation work. The verse is 24.19, one verse after the line already in this library. It is the negative corollary. 24.18 says what emptiness is. This verse says what does not exist if that identification holds. Garfield's English is the guide. The Sanskrit verse is the source.
Did Nāgārjuna really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. The verse immediately after 24.18. The English follows Garfield. It draws the consequence of the previous verse, which is already in this library, and it is not a repeat of that verse.
Which work is it in?
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24.19, following Jay L. Garfield Approximate date: c. 2nd–3rd century CE.