Editing Middle Way (section)

==== Nagarjuna====
Nagarjuna's influential ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]'' -‘The Fundamental
Wisdom of the Middle Way’ (MMK) famously contains a reference to the ''Kacc{{IAST|ā}}yanagotta Sutta'' in its 15th chapter. This chapter focuses on deconstructing the ideas of existence, non-existence and intrinsic nature, essence, or inherent existence (''[[Svabhava|svabhāva]]'') and show how such ideas are incoherent and incompatible with causality and dependent origination.<ref name=":6" />

The MMK states:<ref name=":7">Siderits, Mark; Katsura, Shoryu (2013). ''Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika'', pp. 153–163. Simon and Schuster</ref><blockquote>
4. Further, without intrinsic nature and extrinsic nature how can there be an existent (''bhāva'')? For an existent is established given the existence of either intrinsic nature or extrinsic nature.

5. If the existent is unestablished, then the nonexistent (''abhāva'') too is not established. For people proclaim the nonexistent to be the alteration of the existent.

6. Intrinsic nature and extrinsic nature, existent and nonexistent—who see these do not see the truth of the Buddha's teachings.

7. In "The Instructing of Katyāyana" both "it exists" and "it does not exist" are denied by the Blessed One, who clearly perceives the existent and the nonexistent.</blockquote>
MMK further discusses the two extremes as follows:<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>
10. "It exists" is an eternalist view; "It does not exist" is an annihilationist idea. Therefore the wise one should not have recourse to either existence or nonexistence.

11. For whatever exists by its intrinsic nature does not become nonexistent; eternalism then follows. "It does not exist now [but] it existed previously"—from this, annihilation follows.</blockquote>According to Mark Siderits and Shoryu Katsura, for Nagarjuna, the two extremes refer to:<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>the view that things exist having intrinsic nature and the view that the lack of intrinsic nature means that things are utterly unreal. The argument is that the first leads to the conclusion that ultimately real things are eternal, while the second leads to the conclusion that ultimately nothing whatsoever exists. </blockquote>