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

XXII.1. That one who is “fully-completed” is not the “groups of universal elements” (skandha),
nor something other than the “groups”;
the “groups” are not in him, nor is he in them;
The “fully completed” does not possess the “groups.”
What, then, is the “fully completed”?

XXII.2. If the Buddha exists dependent on the “groups,” then he is not “that which exists by itself” (svabbava)
And how can he exist as something else (parabhava) (“other-existence”) if he is not “that which exists by itself” (svabbava)?

XXII.3. That which exists presupposing another existent thing is properly called a “non-individual self” (anatma).
How will that which is a non-individual self become the “fully completed”?

XXII.4. And if there is no self-existence (svabhava), how would it have an “other-existence” (parabhava)?
What would that “fully completed” reality be without either a self-existence or other-existence?

XXII.5. If some kind of “fully completed” thing would exist without dependence on the “groups,”
It is dependent now; therefore it exists dependent on something.

XXII.6. There is no kind of “fully completed” being which is not dependent on the “groups.”
And whatever is not non-dependent—how will it become dependent?

XXII.7. There is nothing whatever that is dependent on the “groups” and there is no thing whatever on which something does not depend.
There would not exist in any way a “fully completed” being without being dependent on the “groups”.

XXII.8. That fully completed being which does not exist by its actual reality (tattva) or by some other reality (anyatva) according to the five-fold examination—
How is the “fully completed” being perceived by being dependent?

XXII.9. So when there is dependence, self-existence does not exist;
And if there is no self-existence whatever, how is an other-existence possible?

XXII.10. Thus “dependence” and “that which is dependent” are completely empty (sunya).
How is that empty “fully completed one” known through that which is empty?

XXII.11. One may not say that there is “emptiness” (sunya)
nor that there is non-emptiness.”
Nor that both exist simultaneously,
nor that neither exists;
the purpose for saying “emptiness” is for the purpose of conveying knowledge.

XXII.12. How, then, will “eternity,” “non-eternity,” and the rest of the Tetralemma apply to bliss (santa)?
How, then, will “the end,” “without end,” and the rest of the Tetralemma apply to bliss?

XXII.13. That image of nirvana in which the Buddha (Tathagata) either “is” or “is not”—
By him who so imagines nirvana the notion is crudely grasped.

XXII.14. Concerning that which is empty by its own nature (svabhava), the thoughts do not arise that:
The Buddha “exists” or “does not exist” after death.

XXII.15. Those who describe in detail the Buddha, who is unchanging and beyond all detailed description—
Those, completely defeated by description, do not perceive the “fully completed” being.

XXII.16. The self-existence of the “fully completed” being is the self-existence of the world.
The “fully completed” being is without self-existence and the world is without self-existence.

Source: Orientalia