Chapter 14. Investigation of Conjunction
The visible, seeing and the one who sees — these three, taken in pairs and all together, do not enter into conjunction with one another.
In the same way passion, the one seized by passion, and what arouses passion — consider them as a threesome; and likewise the remaining kleśas and the remaining spheres of sense.
Conjunction is of one thing with another — but such otherness is not found in the visible and the rest, and therefore they do not enter into conjunction.
And it is not only in the visible and the rest that otherness is not found: nothing whatever has otherness with respect to anything whatever.
The other is other in dependence on an other; without the other, the other is not other. And what depends on something cannot be other than that on which it depends.
If the other were other than the other, and were so even without that other, then it would be other than the other; but without it there is no such thing, and so it is not.
Otherness is not found in what is other, nor is it found in what is not other; and when there is no otherness, there is neither the other nor the very same.
Neither the conjunction of a thing with itself nor that of one thing with another is possible; what is being conjoined, what is conjoined, and the one who conjoins do not exist.
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.