Nāgārjuna, Causation, and Logical Thinking

Reading Nāgārjuna’s “Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way” #8

I would like to continue my commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. As a reminder, you can find the previous posts here: Articles on Nāgārjuna.

---

---

Sanskrit

na san nāsan na sadasan dharmo nirvartate yadā |
kathaṃ nirvartako hetur evaṃ sati hi yujyate ||

Chinese (by Kumārajīva)

若果非有生 亦復非無生
亦非有無生 何得言有緣

English (my tentative translation from the Sanskrit)

When an entity does not arise as existent, non-existent, or both existent and non-existent, how can a productive cause arise in such a case? For it is appropriate.

Commentary

In these verses, Nāgārjuna used three steps of the tetralemma to criticize the idea of a productive cause (nirvartako hetur). The three steps are:

1. “Existent” as affirmation.

2. “Non-existent” as negation.

3. “Both existent and non-existent” as biaffirmation.