Nāgārjuna, Intrinsic Nature, and Forms of Discourse

Reading Nāgārjuna's "Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way" #4

Your sponsorship means everything. Consider becoming a paid or founding subscriber to help me keep writing. You will get access to all my paywall articles and more.

---

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

---

Sanskrit

na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate |
avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate ||

Chinese (by Kumārajīva)

如諸法自性 不在於緣中
以無自性故 他性亦復無

English (my tentative translation from the Sanskrit)

Indeed, there is no intrinsic nature in beings such as causes and conditions. When intrinsic nature does not exist, other-dependent nature does not exist.

Commentary

In this passage Nāgārjuna refutes the idea that beings have an intrinsic unchanging stable nature (svabhāva). There is no substance or essence of things.

He also states that without intrinsic nature, the distinction of “other-dependent nature” (parabhāva) collapses. Such a point contributes to extending the idea of the absence of intrinsic nature of beings to all beings without exception.

Nāgārjuna uses these verses to illustrate the dependent co-arising (pratītyasamutpāda) and fundamental emptiness (śūnyatā) of all beings, emphasizing that neither self-nature (svabhāva) nor other-dependent nature (parabhāva) exists in and of itself.

This position supports the fundamental critique at the heart of the Middle Way of conceptual reification.

Note: The Chinese translation seems to be more analytical than the Sanskrit. It explains:

Likewise, the intrinsic nature of all entities is not in conditions. Because of the absence of intrinsic nature, other nature is also not.

Philosophical Meaning

What is important to me here are the slight differences between Sanskrit and Chinese, differences that philologists usually consider insignificant, but which trace different conceptual boundaries.