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

II.1. Nargarjuna: That which is already gone to is not that which is “being gone to” (gamyate);
more so, “that which is not yet gone to “is certainly not that “being gone to.”
Also, the “present going to”
without “that which is already gone to” and “that which is not yet gone to”
is not “being gone to”.

II.2. An opponent objects:
Where there is activity there is a “process of going”, and that activity is in the “present going to”.
Then “process of going” is inherent in the “present going to” since the activity (visible activity) is not in “that which is already gone to” nor in “that which is not yet gone to.”

II.3. Nargarjuna answers:
How will the “act of going” of “present going to” be produced,
Since both kinds of the “act of going” as applied to an active process and to the activity of going through space simply are not produced in the “present going to”?

II.4. Having the “act of going” of “present going to” has necessarily resulted in a lack of “the present going to” of the “process of going”,
For the “present going to” is the “being gone to”.

II.5. Recognizing the “act of going” (visible activity & displacement) of “present going to” results in two kinds of “acts of going”:
One by which there is “present going to”, the other which is the “act of going”.

II.6. Two “goers” would fallaciously follow as a consequence of two “acts of going,”
Since certainly the “act of going” is not produced without a “goer”.

II.7. If there is no going without a “goer”,
How will the “goer” come into being when there is no “going”?

II.8. The “goer” does not go;
consequently a “non-goer” certainly does not go.
What third possibility goes other than the “goer” and “non-goer”?

II.9. It is said: “The ‘goer’ goes” (moves) How is that possible,
When without the “act of going” (gamana – visible movement) no “goer” is produced?

II.10. Those who hold the view that the “goer” “goes” (moves) must falsely conclude
That there is a “goer” without the “act of going” (visible activity & displacement) since the “act of going” (visible activity & displacement) is obtained (icchata) by a “goer.”

II.11. If the “goer” “goes” (moves), then two acts of going (visible activity and displacement) erroneously follow;
One is that by which the “going on” (ganta) is designated, and the second is the real “goer” (ganta / self-existing subject) who “goes”(moves).

II.12. The “state of going to” is not begun in “that which is already gone to”, nor in “that which is not yet gone to”;
Nor is the “state of going to” begun in “present going to”.
Where then is it begun?

II.13. “Present going to” does not exist previous to the beginning of the “act of going,” (visible activity and displacement)
nor does “that which is already gone to” exist where the “act of going” (visible activity and displacement) should begin.
How can the “act of going” (visible activity and displacement) begin in “that which is not yet gone to”?

II.14. It is mentally fabricated what is “that which is already gone to”, “present going to” and “that which is not yet gone to”;
Therefore, the beginning of the “act of going” is not seen in any way.

II.15. A “goer” does not remain unmoved); then certainly the “non-goer” does not remain unmoved.
What third possibility other than “goer” and “non-goer” can thus remain unmoved?

II.16. It is said that a “goer” continues to be a “goer”.
But how can that be possible,
Since a “goer”(ganta / self-existing subject) lacking the “act of going” (gamanam – visible activity and displacement) is simply not produced?

II.17-18. The “goer” does not continue to be a goer as a result of “present going to” or “that which is already gone to” or “that which is not yet gone to, “For then the act of going (gamana – visible activity and displacement) would be origination while the “process of going” (gati – real going process) would be the same as cessation.

II.19. And if the “act of going” (visible movement) and the “goer” are identical,
The fallacy logically follows that the “person acting” (kartus) and the action (karma) are identical.

II.20. Alternatively, if the “goer” is different from the “process of going” (gati – – real going process),
The “act of going” (gamana – visible activity and displacement) would exist without the “goer” and the “goer” would exist without the “act of going.” (visible activity & displacement)

II.21. Neither the identity nor the essential difference is established (siddhi) regarding the two conceptions “goer” and “act of going” (visible activity and displacement).
If these two alternatives are not established, in what way is this problem to be understood?

II.22. The “goer” is defined by that which is in the “process of going” (real going process);
he does not go to that destination which is determined by the “process of going” (real going process)
because there is no prior “process of going.” (gati – real going process)
Indeed someone goes somewhere.

II.23. The “goer” does not go to that destination other than that “process of going” (real going process)- by which he is defined as “goer”,
Because when one goes somewhere two “processes of going” (real going processes) cannot be produced.

II.24. A real “goer” does not motivate three kinds of “acts of going:” real, non-real, and real-and-non-real;
Nor does a non-real “goer” motivate three kinds of motion.

II.25. Also, a real-non-real “goer” does not motivate three kinds of motion.
Therefore,
the “process of going” (gati – real going process),
the “goer” (ganta /self-existing subject)
and “a destination to be gone to” (gantavyam)
do not exist (inherently).

Source: Orientalia