Chapter 11. Investigation of the Prior and Posterior Limits
“Is a prior limit discerned?” The Great Sage answered: “No” — for saṃsāra is without beginning and without end; it has neither a first point nor a last.
For that which has neither a beginning nor an end, where could a middle come from? Therefore the sequences “earlier”, “later” and “simultaneous” make no sense here.
If birth were earlier and old age and death later, then birth would be free of old age and death, and one would be born immortal.
If birth were later and old age and death came first, then how could old age and death befall one who has not been born — and without a cause?
Nor does it hold that old age and death and birth are simultaneous, for then the one being born would be dying, and both would be without a cause.
Where these sequences — “earlier”, “later” and “simultaneous” — have no force, why then do they spin out conceptual proliferation about that birth and that old age and death?
Effect and cause, the marked and the mark, feeling and the one who feels — and whatever other things there may be —
no prior limit exists: not only of saṃsāra, but for all existents whatsoever no prior limit exists.
Every verse here is genuine and stands in its own order — the forum is only a way of breaking the chapter up. Not a single line in these posts was added.
Where a second voice appears, it is the pūrvapakṣa: the opponent’s position, stated by Nāgārjuna in his own words so that he can take it apart.