ne who considers the
question with full knowledge. "That things have being is one extreme:
that things have no being is the other extreme. These extremes have
been avoided by the Tathagata and it is a middle doctrine that he
teaches," namely, dependent origination as explained in the chain of
twelve links. The Madhyamika theory that objects have no absolute and
independent existence but appear to exist in virtue of their relations
is a restatement of this ancient dictum.

The Mahayanist doctors find an ethical meaning in their negations. If
things possessed _svabhava_, real, absolute, self-determined
existence, then the four truths and especially the cessation of
suffering and attainment of sanctity would be impossible. For if
things were due not to causation but to their own self-determining
nature (and the Hindus always seem to understand real existence in
this sense) cessation of evil and attainment of the good would be
alike impossible: the four Noble Truths imply a world which is in a
state of constant becoming, that is a world which is not really
existent.

But for all that the doctrine of _sunyata_ as stated in the Madhyamika
aphorisms ascribed to Nagarjuna leaves an impression of audacious and
ingenious sophistry. After laying down that every object in the world
exists only in relation to every other object and has no
self-existence, the treatise proceeds to prove that rest and motion
are alike impossible. We speak about the path along which we are
passing but there is really no such thing, for if we divide the path
accurately, it always proves separable into the part which has been
passed over and the part which will be passed over. There is no part
which is being passed over. This of course amounts to a denial of the
existence of present time. Time consists of past and future separated
by an indivisible and immeasurable instant. The minimum of time which
has any meaning for us implies a change, and two elements, a former
and a subsequent. The present minute or the present hour are
fallacious expressions.[104]

Therefore no one ever _is passing_ along a path. Again you cannot
logically say that the passer is passing, for the sentence is
redundant: the verb adds nothing to the noun and _vice versa_: but on
the other hand you clearly cannot say that the non-passer is passing.
Again if you say that the passer and the passing are identical, you
overlook the distinction between the agent and the act and both bec