P.11

　　   position,  following   the  ancient   discourse   to
　　   Katyaayana,　　 as　　 mentioned　　 later　　 in　　 the
　　   Madhyamaka-kaarikaa, and as stated in Candrakiirti's
　　   Madhyamakaavataara, VI, 114:

　　   Since entities do not arise by chance, (i.e.) from a
　　   lord,  and  so  on  (primal   matter,  time,  atoms,
　　   svabhaava,  Puru.sa,  Naaraayana,  etc.) ,  or  from
　　   themselves, others, or both (themselves and others),
　　   then  they  arise  in  dependence   (on  causes  and
　　   conditions).(32)

　　   Besides,   to   begin   afresh   amounts　　 to   the
　　   establishment  of voidness  (`suunyataa), for so the
　　   Anavatapta (naagaraaja) parip.rcchaa  is cited: "Any
　　   (thing) that  is born (in dependence) on conditions,
　　   is not born (to wit): The birth of this (thing) does
　　   not occur by self-existence (svabhaava). Any (thing)
　　   that is dependent  on conditions, is declared  void.
　　   Any　　 person　　 who   understands　　 voidness,   is
　　   heedful."(33)   Since   Naagaarjuna　　 begins　　 his
　　   Madhyamaka-kaarikaa  with this theory  of causation,
　　   it is reasonable  to assume that it is essential for
　　   the  rest   of  his   work.  Also,  since   voidness
　　   (`suunyataa) is established  in the  course  of  the
　　   causal  denials, it  is taken  for  granted  in  the
　　   denial in terms of existence, and so the attempt  to
　　   establish  voidness  by way of existence  becomes  a
　　   faulty point of view (d.r.s.ti), as in MK XXII, 11:

　　   One should not say "It's void." nor "It's non-void,"
　　   nor  "It's  both  (void  and non-void), " nor  "It's
　　   neither."  But  it may be said  in the  meaning  of
　　   designation.

　　   One should  not say, "It's  void," because  the four
　　   alternatives  applied to existence  cannot establish
　　   voidness.   But  in  the   meaning   of  designation
　　   (praj~naptiartham), as in the celebrated  verses (MK
　　   XXIV, 18-19), there is the act of calling  dependent
　　   origination  'voidness'  and the dharmas  so arising
　　   'void';  and here Naagaarjuna  adds that  the act of
　　   calling, when there is the dependency, is the middle
　　   path.(34)

　　　　  Besides, the denial of the four alternatives  in
　　   the  scope  of causation  (confer, MK I, 1, earlier)
　　   was  aimed  at  four  philosophical   positions,  as