Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (XX) — by Nagarjuna

XX.1. If a product (phala) is produced through the aggregate of causes and conditions,
And exists in an aggregate, how will it be produced in the aggregate?

XX.2. If a product is produced in the aggregate of causes and conditions,
And does not exist in the aggregate, how will it be produced in the aggregate?

XX.3. If the product is in the aggregate of causes and conditions,
Would it not be “grasped” i.e., located in the aggregate? But it is not “grasped” in the aggregate.

XX.4. If the product is not in the aggregate of causes and conditions,
Then the causes and conditions would be the same as non-causes and non-conditions.

XX.5. If a cause, having given the cause for a product, is stopped,
Then that which is “given” and that which is stopped would be two identities of the cause.

XX.6. If a cause without having given the cause for a product is stopped
Then, the cause being stopped, the product would be produced as something derived from a non-cause (ahetuka).

XX.7. If the product would become visible concomitantly with the aggregate of causes and conditions,
Then it would logically follow that the producer and that which is produced exist in the same moment.

XX.8. If the product would become visible before the aggregate,
Then the product, without being related to causes and conditions, would be something derived from a non-cause.

XX.9. If, when the cause of the product is stopped, there would be a continuation of the cause,
It would logically follow that there would be another production of the previous producing cause.

XX.10. How can that which is stopped, i.e., something which has disappeared, produce the arising of a product?
How could a cause which is enclosed by its product, even though it persists, originate that product?

XX.11. Or if that cause were not enclosed by the product, which product would it produce?
For the cause does not produce the product, having seen or not having seen the product.

XX.12. There is no concomitance of a past product with a past cause, a future cause or present cause.

XX.13. Certainly there is no concomitance of the present product with future cause, past cause or present cause.

XX.14. Certainly there is no concomitance of a future product with a present cause, future cause or past cause.

XX.15. If there is no concomitance whatever, how would the cause produce the product?
Or if a concomitance exists, how would the cause produce the product?

XX.16. If the cause is empty of a product, how would it produce the product?
If the cause is not empty of a product, how would it produce the product?

XX.17. A non-empty product would not be originated, and a non-empty product would not be destroyed.
Then that is non-empty which will not originate or not disappear.

XX.18. How would that be produced which is empty?
How would that be destroyed which is empty?
It logically follows, then, that which is empty is not originated and not destroyed.

XX.19. Certainly a oneness of cause and product is not possible at all.
Nor is a difference of cause and product possible at all.

XX.20. If there were a oneness of the cause and product, then there would be an identity of the originator and what is originated.
If there were a difference of product and cause, then a cause would be the same as that which is not a cause.

XX.21. Can a cause produce a product which is essentially existing in itself (svabhva) ?
Can a cause produce a product which is not essentially existing in itself (svabhava) ?

XX.22. It is not possible to have “what is by its nature a cause” (hetutva) of “that which is not producing.”
If “what is by its nature a cause” is not possible, whose product will exist?

XX.23. How will that aggregate of causes and conditions produce a product when
That which is the aggregate of causes and conditions does not produce itself by itself?

XX.24. The product is not produced by the aggregate;
nor is the product not produced by the aggregate.
Without the product, how is there an aggregate of conditions?

Source: Orientalia