If a thing did not depend

On anything else at all

It would be self-established,

But such a thing exists nowhere. [14.326]

"The form is a pot" - they are not one.

The pot that has form is not separate,

The pot does not have form,

Nor does the form have a pot. [14.327]

Since the two are seen to have dissimilar

Characteristics, if the pot is separate

From existence, why would existence

Not also be separate from the pot? [14.328]

If one is not accepted as the pot

The pot also is not one. [14.329a]

Moreover possession is not reciprocal,

Therefore also it is not one. [14.329b]

If the form is the size of the substance,

Why is the form not large? [14.330ab]

If the opponent were not different,

Scriptural sources could be cited? [14.330cd]

By virtue of its characteristic

The characterized does not exist.

Such a thing has no existence

As something different from number and so forth. [14.328]

Because the pot is not separate

From its characteristics, it is not one. [14.332ab]

If there is not a pot for each,

Purality is not feasible. [14.332cd]

The tangible and the intangible

Cannot be said to coalesce.

Thus it is no way feasible

For these forms to coalesce. [14.333]

Form is a component of the pot

And thus, for a start, is not the pot. [14.334ab]

Since the compound does not exist,

Neither do the components. [14.334cd]

If the definition of form

Applies without incongruity

To all forms, for what reason

Is one a pot and not all others? [14.335]

If you assert that form is distinct from

Taste and so forth but not from the pot,

How can that which does not exist

Without these not be distinct from form? [14.336]

The pot has no causes

And is itself not an effect.

Thus there is no pot at all

Apart from form and so forth. [14.337]

If the pot exists by virtue of its causes

And those causes by virtue of others,

How can that which does not exist

By virtue of itself produce something disparate? [14.338]

Though they meet and come together

Form cannot be smell.

Therefore like the pot

The composite cannot be one. [14.339]

Just as the pot does not exist

Apart from form and so forth,

Likewise form does not exist

Apart from air and so forth. [14.340]

That which is hot is fire but how

Can that burn which is not hot?

Thus so-called fuel does not exist,

And without it fire too does not. [14.341]

Even if it is hot only when

Overpowered, why is it not fire?

Yet if not hot, to say fire contains

Something else is not plausible. [14.342]

If the particle has not fuel

Fire with fuel exists.

If even it has fuel, a single-natured

Particle does not exist. [14.343]

When different things are examined

None of them have singleness.

Because there is no singleness

There is no plurality either. [14.344]

Though they assert that where there are none

Of those things there is singleness,

Singleness does not exist

Since everything is threefold. [14.345]

The approach of existence, non-existence,

Both existence and non-existence, and neither,

Should always be applied by those

With mastery to oneness and so forth. [14.346]

When the continuum is misapprehended,

Things are said to be permanent.

Similarly when composites are

Misapprehended, things are said to exist. [14.347]

Anything that has dependent arising

Is not independent.

All these are not independent,

Therefore there is no self. [14.348]

Things do not assemble

Unless there is an effect.

Aggregation for an effect

Is not included for the Exalted. [14.349]

The awareness that is the seed of existence

Has objects as its sphere of activity.

When selflessness is seen in objects,

The seed of existence is destroyed. [14.350]

SUMMARIZING STANZA

All who have gained a free and fortunate human body,

Following the reasoning of Nagarjuna and his son,

Should understand emptiness to mean dependent arising

Who would not make effort to achieve this end?