Chapter 19. Investigation of Time
If the present and the future exist in dependence on the past, then the present and the future would be in the past time.
But if the present and the future are not there [in the past], how could the present and the future exist in dependence on it?
And without that dependence [on the past] the two cannot be established; therefore the present and the future do not exist, and hence time does not exist.
In this very [way] one should examine in turn the two remaining [divisions of time] as they exchange places, and also the highest, the lowest, the middle and the rest, oneness and the rest.
Time that does not abide is not grasped; time that abides does not exist; so how can time be proclaimed, when it is not grasped and cannot be grasped?
If time depends on an existent, then where is time apart from the existent? And since no existent whatsoever exists, where would time come from?
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.