Shunyata Saptati

Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness

Verse 1

The Buddha spoke of existence, arising, cessation, being, non-being, inferior, middling, and superior by following worldly convention, not because these are so in ultimate reality.

Verse 2

Language has no ultimate significance, because neither self, non-self, nor both self and non-self truly exist.
That which language refers to is, like nirvāṇa, without intrinsic nature.

Verse 3

All phenomena are without intrinsic nature in every respect.
They do not exist through causes or conditions, neither as wholes nor as parts.
Therefore, they are empty.

Verse 4

Being cannot arise, because it would have to already exist.
Non-being cannot arise, because it does not exist.
Being-and-non-being cannot arise due to mutual contradiction.
Therefore, neither arising, abiding, nor cessation is possible.

Verse 5

That which has already arisen cannot arise again.
That which has not yet arisen cannot arise.
That which is arising in the present cannot arise either,
because it is partially unarisen.

Verse 6

For a cause to exist, an effect must exist.
When the effect has already arisen in the past, or has not yet arisen, the cause cannot exist, since the effect does not exist.
An effect that is arising would be both existent and non-existent, leading to contradiction.
Therefore, a cause cannot be established in any of the three times.

Verse 7

Without “one,” “many” is not possible.
Without “many,” “one” is not possible.
Thus, there is no basis for determining entities that arise dependently.

Verse 8

Suffering that is said to arise dependent on the twelve links cannot truly arise,
because it cannot be determined in which mind that suffering is grounded.

Verse 9

Nothing is eternal or non-eternal.
There is no self and no non-self.
Nothing is pure, nothing impure.
There is no pleasure, no pain.
Therefore, error (distortion) is not possible.

Verse 10

Since these do not exist, ignorance arising from distortion is impossible.
Since there is no ignorance, formations do not arise.
Thus follows the explanation of the remaining links.

Verse 11

Without formations, ignorance cannot exist.
Likewise, without ignorance, formations cannot arise.
Since they depend on each other, they are without intrinsic nature.

Verse 12

That which is not determined by its own nature—how can it produce others?
Therefore, a relational entity determined by others cannot produce others.

Verse 13

Without a son, a father is not possible; without a father, a son is not possible.
Without mutual dependence, neither can exist.
They cannot arise simultaneously either.
The same applies to the twelve links.

Verse 14

Just as in a dream, pleasure and pain depend on an object that is not real,
so too both the dependently arisen entity and that which produces through dependence have no real existence.

Verse 15

(The opponent says:)
If things are without intrinsic nature, then inferior, middling, and superior states, as well as the world structured by number, would not exist, nor could their existence be established by any cause.

Verse 16

(The Madhyamaka replies:)
If intrinsic nature were established, dependently arisen things would not arise at all.
If they do not exist dependently, then why would they have intrinsic nature?
For intrinsic nature cannot be without existence.

Verse 17

How can intrinsic nature exist in something that does not exist?
How could intrinsic nature arise from other-nature or from non-existence?
Therefore, intrinsic nature, other-nature, and non-existence are distortions.

Verse 18

(The opponent says:)
If things are empty, then arising and cessation are impossible.
How could that which is empty by nature arise or perish?

Verse 19

(The Madhyamaka says:)
Existence and non-existence cannot coexist.
Without non-existence, existence is impossible.
Since existence and non-existence are always posited together,
existence cannot exist without dependence on non-existence.

Verse 20

If existence does not exist, non-existence is also impossible,
because non-existence cannot arise either from itself or from something else.
Thus, neither existence nor non-existence exists.

Verse 21

If existence truly existed, there would be only permanence.
If non-existence truly existed, there would be only absence.
These faults arise from accepting existence itself.
Therefore, existence should not be accepted.

Verse 22

(The opponent says:)
Existence exists, but it is discontinuous, because each existent ceases after producing its result.

(The Madhyamaka replies:)
This supposed continuous series of existence is unestablished.
Moreover, any such imagined series cannot remain unbroken or independently stable.
Therefore, existence does not exist.

Verse 23

(Opponent):
No! The Buddha’s teaching concerns presence and absence, not emptiness.

(Reply):
To regard presence and absence as separate from emptiness is itself delusion.

Verse 24

(Opponent):
If presence and absence do not exist, then from whose absence does nirvāṇa arise?

(Madhyamaka):
Is not nirvāṇa precisely the understanding that nothing is present or absent by intrinsic nature?

Verse 25

If nirvāṇa arose from absence, it would be total annihilation.
If otherwise, it would be eternalism.
Therefore, nirvāṇa should not be conceived as existence or non-existence.

Verse 26

If nirvāṇa were truly of the nature of absence, it would exist neither as existence nor as non-existence.
And that which is neither existence nor non-existence can only be awakening.

Verse 27

That which is said to be established by another is not established by that other, nor by itself.
They cannot establish each other,
because what is not itself established cannot establish what is unestablished.

Verse 28

Thus, cause and effect, enjoyer and enjoyment, object and perceiver—
all are explained in the same way.
They are all empty.

Verse 29

The three times do not exist, because they are unstable, mutually dependent, and changing.
They are not self-established, and being without intrinsic nature, are mere conceptual constructions.

Verse 30

Since the three characteristics of conditioned things—arising, abiding, and cessation—have no independent existence,
there is neither the conditioned nor the unconditioned.
In reality, no principle exists by intrinsic nature.

Verse 31

If everything is without intrinsic nature, then bondage and liberation also have no intrinsic existence.
That which is not intrinsically bound cannot be intrinsically liberated.

Verse 32

If bondage existed, it would be permanent.
If liberation existed, it too would be permanent.
But how can that which is not permanent be said to have intrinsic nature?

Verse 33

That which is not bound has no need to be liberated.
And that which is liberated cannot meaningfully undergo a process of liberation.

Verse 34

Bondage through ignorance and liberation through knowledge—
this distinction is stated according to worldly convention,
not in ultimate truth.

Verse 35

If ignorance had intrinsic nature, it could never be destroyed.
If it is destroyed, then it has no intrinsic nature.

Verse 36

If knowledge had intrinsic nature, it could not arise.
If it arises, then it is without intrinsic nature.

Verse 37

Thus, neither ignorance nor knowledge has intrinsic nature.
And where neither has intrinsic nature, bondage and liberation also lack intrinsic existence.

Verse 38

What is seen depends on the seer.
And the seer depends on what is seen.
Neither of the two is independent.

Verse 39

If there were no object, there would be no perceiver.
If there were no perceiver, there would be no object.
In such mutual dependence, the notion of intrinsic nature is incoherent.

Verse 40

Likewise, hearing, touch, memory, and thought
all depend on their respective objects,
and the objects depend on them.

Verse 41

That which is mutually dependent
is neither self-established
nor established by another.
Therefore, it is empty.

Verse 42

If there were a self, it would act.
If there were action, the agent would be permanent.
But there is no permanent agent and no permanent action.

Verse 43

Action depends on the agent,
and the agent depends on action.
In this duality, nothing is ultimately established.

Verse 44

If action had intrinsic nature,
its result would be inevitable.
If the result were inevitable,
effort would be meaningless.

Verse 45

But results are neither inevitable
nor accidental.
They appear only through dependence.

Verse 46

Therefore, neither merit nor demerit has intrinsic nature.
They are merely conventional designations.

Verse 47

If saṃsāra were real,
nirvāṇa would be impossible.
If nirvāṇa were real,
saṃsāra would be impossible.

Verse 48

But saṃsāra and nirvāṇa
are both without intrinsic nature.
Therefore, they are neither different nor identical.

Verse 49

One who sees emptiness in saṃsāra
does not search for nirvāṇa.
And one who searches for nirvāṇa
does not flee from saṃsāra.

Verse 50

Turning away from saṃsāra is not nirvāṇa,
and remaining entangled in saṃsāra is not bondage.

Verse 51

One who turns emptiness into a thing
falls into profound delusion.
Emptiness itself is empty.

Verse 52

Emptiness has no intrinsic nature.
If it had intrinsic nature,
it would not itself be empty.

Verse 53

Therefore, the Buddha taught emptiness
as a means for the destruction of views,
not as a new view.

Verse 54

One who grasps emptiness does not let go.
One who lets go
alone is called liberated.

Verse 55

To regard any doctrine as final truth—
this itself is the greatest bondage.

Verse 56

The Buddha established no doctrine.
He only revealed the groundlessness of doctrines.

Verse 57

Whatever has been spoken
has been spoken for worldly convention.
In ultimate reality, nothing can be spoken.

Verse 58

Ultimate reality is not silence,
yet it is not in words.

Verse 59

One who knows that there is nothing to be known
alone truly knows.

Verse 60

Knowledge and ignorance—
both are conceptual fabrications.
That which is beyond them
can neither be stated nor denied.

Verse 61

There is no self,
no non-self,
neither both,
nor the absence of both.

Verse 62

One who abandons all four
abides in the Middle Way.

Verse 63

The Middle Way is not a new path;
it is merely the absence of extremes.

Verse 64

Existence and non-existence—
both are extremes.
Emptiness is their negation.

Verse 65

In this negation, no thing is found;
only the end of delusion occurs.

Verse 66

The end of delusion
is what people call nirvāṇa.

Verse 67

But nirvāṇa is not a thing,
not a state,
not a place.

Verse 68

Where nothing remains to be grasped,
there awakening appears.

Verse 69

This awakening neither arises
nor ceases,
because it was never bound.

Verse 70

Thus, whatever has been spoken
has been made possible through emptiness.
And one who understands emptiness
does not become entangled in any view.