Why Permanent Existence is Impossible.

What are the implications for a person like myself?

Nagarjuna argues that nothing can exist permanently because all phenomena are dependently originated. Permanent existence would imply an inherent, self-sustaining essence that exists independently of causes, conditions, or relations. He systematically refutes this by showing that such a notion is logically incoherent. However, let’s hypothesize what permanent existence would entail and why Nagarjuna would say it’s impossible.

Hypothetical Conditions for Permanent ExistenceIf a thing were to exist permanently, according to Nagarjuna’s analytical lens, it would have to meet the following conditions, which he ultimately shows are untenable:

1. Independent Existence:

   • A permanent thing would need to exist by its own inherent nature, independent of any causes, conditions, or relationships. It would have to be self-existent, unchanging, and eternal, with no reliance on external factors.

   • Nagarjuna’s Critique:

   • He states, “An inherent nature is not possible for things, for it would be uncaused and unconditioned.” If something has an inherent essence, it cannot arise or cease, as it would be immutable. Yet, we observe all phenomena as arising and ceasing, so permanence contradicts experience.

2. Uncaused and Unconditioned:

   • A permanent thing could not depend on causes or conditions, as dependence implies contingency and change. It would have to exist without ever being produced, altered, or destroyed.

   • Nagarjuna’s Critique:

   • He examines causation and concludes that nothing can arise without causes and conditions. A permanent thing, being uncaused, would be disconnected from the web of dependent origination, rendering it irrelevant to the observable world. He writes, “If an entity were to exist inherently, it would not be dependently originated; but all entities are dependently originated.”

3. Immutable and Non-Relational:

   • Permanence would require the thing to be unchanging and unaffected by time, space, or interaction with other entities. It would exist in isolation, with no relation to anything else.

   • Nagarjuna’s Critique:

   • Nagarjuna states, “All things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen.” A thing’s identity (e.g., a table) depends on its parts, function, and conceptual designation by a mind. A permanent thing would lack such relational dependencies, but no such thing is observed, as all phenomena are interdependent.

4. Outside the Two Truths:

   • In Nagarjuna’s Two Truths doctrine, phenomena exist conventionally (as functional, relative entities) but are empty of inherent existence ultimately. A permanent thing would have to exist outside this framework, as an absolute, unchanging entity.

   • Nagarjuna’s Critique:

   • He argues that even conventional existence relies on dependent origination. A permanent thing would negate both conventional and ultimate truths, as it would neither function in the relative world nor align with the ultimate truth of emptiness.

Causes of Permanent Existence?

Nagarjuna would argue that no causes could produce a permanent thing, as causation itself implies change and dependence. If a thing were permanent:

• It could not be caused, as causes produce effects that arise and cease.

• It would have to exist eternally without origin, which Nagarjuna refutes. “Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise.”

• A permanent thing would be causeless, but causelessness contradicts the observable reality of dependent origination.

Why Permanent Existence is Impossible

Nagarjuna’s key insight is that permanence is logically and experientially untenable:

• Logical Contradiction: If something is permanent, it cannot interact or change, yet interaction and change are evident in all phenomena (e.g., a seed becomes a plant).

• Relational Nature: Existence is always relational. For example, “long” exists only in relation to “short.” A permanent thing would lack such relationality, making it inconceivable.

• Emptiness: All phenomena are empty of inherent existence because they depend on causes, conditions, and conceptual designation. Permanence would require inherent existence, which Nagarjuna shows is impossible.

Conclusion

For a thing to exist permanently, it would have to be independent, uncaused, unchanging, and non-relational—conditions that Nagarjuna demonstrates are impossible within the framework of dependent origination and emptiness. No causes can produce a permanent thing, as causation inherently involves dependence and impermanence. Instead, things exist only conventionally, as dependently arisen phenomena, empty of inherent essence.