Things do not arise (Candrakirti)

Candrakirti used the argument that inner and outer things do not arise from themselves, from something other than themselves, from both or from neither, i.e. causelessly. Since that covers all four possibilities this argument shows that nothing truly arises. For something to arise, it first has to be absent. The Samkhyas believed that things arose from themselves. Candrakirti refuted this saying that if something already existed, it would not need to arise. Arising has no meaning for something which already exists. The Hinayana Buddhist schools, the Vaibhasikas and Sautrantikas, believed that things arose from what was other than themselves. In other words, one moment gave rise to the next. Candrakirti argued that no connection exists between one moment and the next. A moment arises at the very instant that the moment before disappears. Something that has no connection with another thing can hardly be called its cause, otherwise one could say darkness is the cause of light and light the cause of darkness, just because one followed on from the other.

Since, in this way things arising from themselves and things arising from something else are refuted, one might try to argue that things arise from both. The Jains thought this. Candrakirti argued that such a position has the faults of both the previous positions.

Maybe one would like to argue that things arise from nothing? This would be like the belief of those that deny all cause and effect, including karma cause and effect. Such a school existed in India. They were called Ajivakas and Candrakirti refuted their view by saying that if things arose without cause what would be the point of doing anything? For instance, why should a farmer bother to plant his crops, if causes do not bring about effects? Such a belief, which suggests that everything is haphazard and chaotic, is totally nonscientific.

Maybe a film is a good example of how things are nonarising. We all know that when we see a moving film it is really a series of still frames in quick succession. It may look like one thing is affecting another on the screen but, in fact, except for the sequential arrangement, there is no connection between them. There are even gaps between the pictures. For something to cause something else there has to be a point where they meet, otherwise how could one affect the other? But a cause never exists at the same time as its effect. Once the effect has arisen the cause is past...

-From Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche

This passage really resonates with me, and I actually think it's rather mind-blowing. The way I interpret it, this argument of Candrakirti's shows that conceptual interpretations of reality are inherently self-contradictory, and this is a good prelude to meditation on the emptiness of reality. (Not in a nihilistic sense, but in a nonconceptual sense.) Once you reflect on this passage and see that all rational avenues are exhausted, the mind can rest in nonconceptuality.