PART ONE: Review of Verses 1 - 28
Verses 1 -3 = Arising, abiding, and ceasing, etc, are conventional terms, which are empty signifiers.
Verses 4 - 7 = Arising, effects, and causes cannot be found in the present, past, or future, If one, there are not many. Without many, one is not possible.
Verse 8 - 14 = Ignorance, the Four Inversions (the cause of Ignorance), and saṃskāras are dependently-originated, lacking inherent existence. All phenomenon which arises in dependence on another dependent phenomenon should be known not to exist in the manner of their appearance.
Verse 15 - 20 = Hīnayāna opponents, such as the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣikas, argue that something must exist. Nāgārjuna replies that without the ‘not existing’ thing, the ’existing’ thing is not possible. Existence and non-existence are dependently originated and therefore ‘do not arise’.
Verse 21 - 28 = Nāgārjuna shows that the opponents hold extreme views - that if anything exists, there is eternalism; and if there is inexistence in itself, there is nihilism. Nāgārjuna admits that characteristics are on account of the characterized (thing), and characterized (things) are on account of their characteristics, and therefore they do no exist in and of themselves. This completely explains all that can exist: cause and effect, sensation together with the object of sensation etc., who sees and the visible (thing) etc.
PART TWO: Neither conditioned nor unconditioned ‘exist’
Verse 29 = Past, Present, and Future do not ‘exist’ ”Because they do not remain, because they are admitted one in relation to the other one, because they are inferred, because they cannot be admitted as a substance, because things do not exist, the three times do not exist, they are only an idea.” Verse 30 = Nothing ‘exists’
“Since arising, abiding, and ceasing, these three characteristics of the conditioned (things) do not exist, because of this, what is conditioned and what is not-conditioned – nothing exists.” Verse 31 = Nothing does ‘not exist’
“Destruction does not exist for what has not (yet) been destroyed; nor does it exist for what has (already) been destroyed; does not exist for what has (already) endured; permanence does not exist either for what does not yet endure; birth does what has (already) been born, nor does it exist for what has not (yet) been born.”
Verse 32 = The Conditioned and the Unconditioned are are mutually dependent
“What is conditioned and what is unconditioned are not many [and] not one; are not being [and] are not non-being; are not being-non-being. All [possibilities] are comprised within these limits.”
PART THREE: The Un-arisen
Verse 33 = Opponent brings up karma
”The Buddha taught that there is ‘continuity’ in the flow actions. He also taught that actions (karma) have their own fruit, and that the actions belong to each living being and that the actions do not perish.”
Verse 34 = Nāgārjuna’s Response to Karma having inherent existence
“It has been taught that (karmic actions) do not have own being, therefore, because they do not arise, they do not perish; they arise out the conception of an ego, and also that conception, which makes them arise, arises (at its own turn) out of a (mere) idea.”
Verse 35 = Karma has no inherent ‘own-being’
“If action were an own being, the body, which arises out of it, would be eternal; it could not be provided with the ripening that is suffering; because of this, action would be also a substance.”
Verse 36 = Karma and saṃskāra are mirages
“No action, arisen out of conditions, does exist; nor does exist (any action) arisen out of nonconditions; saṃskāras are similar to a magical illusions, to the gandharvas’ city, to a mirage.”
Verse 37 = Impurities (kleśas) causing actions (karma) that are in-turn conditioned (saṃskāras)
“Action has as its cause the impurities; the saṃskāras are constituted by impurities and action; the body has action as its cause; the three (karmic action, impurities, and saṃskāras) are void of own being.”
Verse 38 = There is no doer of karma, therefore there is no receiver of karmic consequences ”Since action does not exist, the doer of the action does not exist; since both do not exist, the fruit of the action does not exist; since the experiencer (of the fruit) does not exist, owing to the non-existence of that (fruit), all is devoid (of an own being).”
Verse 39 = The Suchness of Action
“If, because of having seen reality, one understands well that action is empty of an own being, action does not (really) arise; since action does not exist, that, which (apparently) has arisen out of action, does not (really) arise.”