For various reason, that which is empty

Appears nonetheless as if not empty.

These are refuted individually

By all the chapters. [16.376]

When the author and subject also exist

It is incorrect to call them empty [16.377ab]

Also with regard to these three, whatever

Arises in dependence does not exist. [16.377cd]

If through flaws concerning emptiness

[Things] were established as not empty,

Why would emptiness not be established

Through flaws concerning lack of emptiness? [16.378]

In refuting the thesis of others

And in proving your own thesis,

If on the one hand you like to disprove,

Why do you not like to prove? [16.379]

When thoroughly investigated,

The non-existent is not a thesis. [16.380ab]

Then all three, such as oneness,

Also are not theses. [16.380cd]

Where a pot is directy perceptible,

The argument of emptiness is meaningless. [16.381ab]

Are not [acceptable]; elsewhere they are. [16.381cd]

Where there is nothing that is not empty

How can emptiness be so?/p>

When the one does not exist,

Why should the antidote exist? [16.382]

If there were a thesis, absence of the thesis

Would in entity be a thesis,

But where there is no thesis

What can be the counter-thesis? [16.383]

How can fire be hot,

When things do not exist?

This was refuted above: it was said

That even hot fire does not exist. [16.384]

If through seeing things one could refute

The statement that things do not exist,

Who then sees the elimination

Of fallacies regarding all four theses? [16.385]

When there is nowhere, even in particles,

A truly existent entity, how can it occur?>

Even for Buddhas, it does not exist,

Thus it is irrelevant. [16.386]

If they are not twofold, how can

Anything have an existent entity?

If that is reasonable to you also,

Why raise further arguements? [16.387]

Regarding the non-functional [aspect] of all things,

Differentiations are inapproopriate.

That which is seen in all substantial entities

Is not diffferentiable. [16.388]

If owing to non-existence you claim

No reply is made to the other's thesis,

Why should you not also prove

Your own thesis which is refuted by reasons? [16.389]

Though the world says it is easy

To find reasons with which to refute,

Why can the errors regarding

The others' thesis not be stated? [16.390]

If just by saying "They exist"

Things really did exist,

Why should they not also be non-existent

Just by saying "They do not exist"? [16.391]

If a thing is not non-existent

Because the term "existent" is ascribed,

Neither is it existent

Because the term "existent" is applied. [16.392]

If everything is a convention

Because expressed by ordinary people,

How can anything which exists

As [its own] suchness be a convention? [16.393]

If things are non-existent because

Things all do not exist,

In that case it is incorrect that all theses

Concern the non-existence of things. [16.394]

Since a thing does not exist

A non-thing cannot exist.

Without a thing's existence,

How can a non-thing be established? [16.395]

If things are not empty because

They are empty by virtue of reasons,

The thesis would not be distinct from the reasons,

And thus the reasons would not exist. [16.396]

If things are not empty because

There are analogies for emptiness,

Can one say, "Just like the crow,

So too the self is black"? [16.397]