Reverse Scholastic Verse

Reversible Scholastic Verse

Reversible Scholastic Verse inaugurates a new mode of contemplative inquiry by Lama Tenzin Rahula Rinpoche. Each verse unfolds two complete and source-faithful interpretations—one when read forward, another when read in reverse. This unique structure mirrors the reciprocal logic of insight and reflection at the heart of Buddhist philosophy. Accompanied by critical commentary grounded in classical texts, the series transforms contemplative reasoning into verifiable, citable scholarship—inviting scientists, humanists, and AI researchers alike to examine the thresholds of meaning and mind.

I. A Biform Vision of Emptiness: A Madhyamaka Reading (Forward and Reverse)

We offer a line-by-line exegesis of a short visionary verse attributed to the Mañjuśrī register. The same text is read forwards in a Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka key (with Tsongkhapa’s distinctive discipline on non-affirming negation and the dependence ⇄ emptiness hinge) and backwards in a presence-forward key (Jonang/Śentong, Nyingma, Sakya; and the Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis), while also showing how the reverse can be rendered fully Prāsaṅgika by pedagogical inversion.

The Verse

Forward order:

Releasing without release

the thoughts of cutting thought

this stream identifies reflection

as empty are things of emptines

sreflecting that dependency without becoming

dissolution upon Buddha

arising buddhas reaching all.

Reverse order:

All reaching Buddhas

arising buddha upon dissolution

Becoming without dependency

that reflecting emptiness of things

Are empty as reflection identifies stream

This thought cutting of thoughts

The release without releasing

I. Forward reading (Prāsaṅgika register)

1) “Releasing without release.”

This line means that liberation is not the acquisition of some hidden essence but the simple absence of what was never there—intrinsic existence. In Prāsaṅgika terms, the ultimate is a non-affirming negation: when the grasped object (svabhāva) is sought and not found, nothing positive is posited in its place. Candrakīrti explicitly denies that Madhyamaka’s negation discloses a new ground or substratum (MA VI.34; VI.80–83), and Nāgārjuna crafts prasaṅga arguments that dismantle intrinsic nature without reifying an alternative (MMK XXIV.8–10). The Heart Sūtra’s refrain “no attainment” (anupalambha) is precisely this non-acquisitive “release.”

2) “the thoughts of cutting thought.”

Here, the “sword” is analytic wisdom that uses concepts to deconstruct conceptual reification and then relinquishes the tool itself as empty. Candrakīrti makes this methodical analysis undermine the imagined essence in subject, act, and object, yet the analytic instrument is not reified when the job is done (MA VI.80–83). Śāntideva, in the Prajñā chapter, shows that inferential insight first dislodges reifying imputation and then yields to non-conceptual equipoise (BCA IX).

3) “this stream identifies reflection.”

“Stream” indicates the mind-continuum at the level of conventional truth; “identifies reflection” means that what appears is only a reflected, dependently designated phenomenon, never a self-standing entity. Nāgārjuna’s hinge verse teaches that emptiness and dependent designation are inseparable (MMK XXIV.18–19), while Candrakīrti explains that conventional truth is precisely what is merely designated by thought and language (MA VI.23–24). The line therefore refuses any “substance under the stream.”

4) “as empty are things of emptiness (there is no emptiness without things).”

This says two things at once. First, emptiness is always emptiness-of-something—there is no emptiness adrift from its basis. Second, the emptiness itself is empty—there is no “real emptiness” hiding behind appearances. Nāgārjuna establishes both points: the dependence–emptiness equivalence (MMK XXIV.18) and the emptiness-of-emptiness that prevents hypostatizing the absolute (MMK XIII.7–8; XXIV.19). Candrakīrti reinforces this (MA VI.23–24), and Tsongkhapa’s Ocean of Reasoning dwells on XXIV.18–19 to insist that emptiness is always indexed to a basis of negation.

5) “reflecting that dependency without becoming.”

The line affirms that because things arise dependently, there is no intrinsic becoming; production is never self-grounded. Nāgārjuna dismantles all models of self-production, other-production, both, and neither (MMK I; VII; XX), and then in XXIV shows why dependent origination is the reason they are empty. Candrakīrti clarifies that dependence avoids both eternalism (a thing from itself) and nihilism (no function at all) (MA VI.120–123). Tsongkhapa calls dependent arising the “king of reasons,” precisely because it explains emptiness while guaranteeing reliable causal function (Lamrim Chenmo, “Special Insight”; In Praise of Dependent Arising, vv.1–5, 11–15).

6) “dissolution upon Buddha.”

“Dissolution” here is the cessation of reification; “upon Buddha” means that the continuum, free of grasping, is described conventionally as “Buddha,” not discovered ultimately as a self. Nāgārjuna’s Tathāgata chapter (MMK XXII) argues that the Buddha cannot be found under analysis as an intrinsically existent person; “Buddha” is a dependently designatedidentity on aggregates and functions. Candrakīrti (MA XI) preserves omniscience and Buddha-qualities conventionally without smuggling intrinsic nature. Tsongkhapa’s Essence of True Eloquence interprets buddha-nature as the emptiness of the mind-continuum (basis of purification), not a positive ultimate core.

7) “arising buddhas reaching all.”

The fruit of the correct view is unobstructed efficacy: compassion and wisdom “reach all” precisely because nothing blocks their function. Candrakīrti articulates how omniscience and skillful means cohere with emptiness (MA XI), and Śāntideva ends the Prajñā chapter affirming that realizing emptiness enhances virtuous activity, not diminishes it (BCA IX).(Tsongkhapa’s distinctive syntheses visible in this forward reading are: the ultimate as non-affirming negation; the dependence ⇄ emptiness hinge; and a rigorous two-truths discipline that makes conventional causality and ethics more—not less—reliable.)

I. Reverse reading (presence-forward register, with Prāsaṅgika inversion as an option)

1) “All reaching Buddhas.”

Beginning from manifest, unobstructed Buddha-activity is a classic pedagogical entry in presence-forward presentations: one starts with the felt universality of enlightened benefit and then reasons back to emptiness. Candrakīrti’s discussion of Buddha’s knowledge and activity (MA XI) lays out the scope of this efficacy, while the Uttaratantra speaks of qualities that pervade (RGV I.154–155)—here read as descriptive of conventional pervasion, not as an ultimate substrate.

2) “arising buddha upon dissolution.”

This asserts that the “arising” of liberative presence is inseparable from the dissolution of conceptual proliferation(prapañca). The Heart Sūtra’s “no arising, no ceasing” insists that what is taken as birth and cessation is emptied of intrinsic status, and Śāntideva shows that as grasping dissolves, spontaneous responsiveness becomes possible (BCA IX).

3) “Becoming without dependency.”

The phrase can be rendered rigorously in two ways. First, it may say that genuine “becoming” exists only as dependenceand therefore without own-being—which is a different way of stating the dependence ⇄ emptiness hinge. Second, in presence-forward rhetoric it may deny reliance on any intrinsic support: liberative presence functions without a self-grounding essence. Dolpopa’s Mountain Doctrine represents a śentong style that foregrounds liberative presence while treating stains as adventitious (to be read with the explicit caveat that presence is not reified). Śāntarakṣita’s Tattvasaṅgraha and Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanākrama give practice-first frameworks that can start from lived efficacy and reason back to emptiness.

4) “that reflecting emptiness of things.”

Here the text names the recognition that appearances are reflections known as empty—a move that presence-forward lineages make without forfeiting Madhyamaka logic. Nāgārjuna’s hinge (MMK XXIV.18) remains decisive: dependence = emptiness = middle. Mipham’s Beacon of Certainty then argues for certainty in the unity of appearance and emptiness without turning either into a ground.

5) “Are empty as reflection identifies stream.”

The mind-stream is “identified” only as reflection or designation; no intrinsic stream is uncovered by analysis. Candrakīrti’s conventional truth as mere designation (MA VI.23–24) is the doctrinal backbone; Gorampa’s Distinguishing the Views shows how to keep presence-rhetoric free of reification while securing a middle free from extremes.

6) “This thought cutting of thoughts.”

Even in a presence-forward approach, analysis retains its task: concept dismantles concept, and the cutter itself is let go as empty. This is exactly Candrakīrti’s method (MA VI.80–83) and Śāntideva’s pathway in BCA IX.

7) “The release without releasing.”

The final cadence is again a non-affirming negation: nothing is attained, no releaser is found, and nirvāṇa is the pacification of proliferations. Nāgārjuna’s account of nirvāṇa (MMK XXV) and the Heart Sūtra’s “no attainment” provide the seal.Guardrails that keep the presence-forward reading watertight:(i) “All-reaching Buddha-activity” is a conventional, dependently arisen description (not an ultimate substrate); (ii) the trajectory ends in non-affirming negation; and (iii) the two truths are held with discipline, so neither eternalism nor nihilism arises.Prāsaṅgika-coherent inversion (same ontology, different pedagogy).If desired, one may also read the reverse order strictly within Prāsaṅgika by treating “All reaching Buddhas” as a conventional upshot, and then back-explaining why such efficacy is possible: each preceding link has no intrinsic nature, and the ending “release without releasing” reinstates the non-affirming ultimate (supported by MMK XXIV.18–19; MA VI & XI; Tsongkhapa’s Ocean of Reasoning on XXIV; and Essence of True Eloquence on the two truths).

Why these two directions legitimately converge as Mañjuśrī-register instruction

In both directions the poem converges on Nāgārjuna’s hinge (MMK XXIV.18): dependent arising ≡ emptiness ≡ the middle. The forward reading privileges the analysis-first pedagogy associated with Prāsaṅgika (and refined by Tsongkhapa), while the reverse honors presence-first pedagogies (Jonang/Śentong, Nyingma, parts of Sakya, and the Śāntarakṣita–Kamalashīla synthesis), with explicit guardrails. The shared endpoint—a non-affirming negation that secures, rather than destroys, conventional function—explains why the same visionary utterance can be received across traditions as Mañjuśrī’s wisdom-register: it unites without homogenizing, and it differentiates without dividing.

Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK). I; VII; XX; XXII; XXIV (esp. 8–10, 18–19); XXV.
Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra (MA). VI.23–24, 34, 80–83, 120–123; XI.
Śāntideva, Bodhicaryāvatāra (BCA). IX.
Tsongkhapa. Ocean of Reasoning (on MMK XXIV.18–19); Essence of True Eloquence (two truths; non-affirming negation; buddha-nature as emptiness of the continuum); Lamrim Chenmo (“Special Insight”); In Praise of Dependent Arising vv.1–5, 11–15.
Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Mountain Doctrine (śentong chapters).
Mipham Jamyang Namgyal Gyatso. Beacon of Certainty.
Gorampa Sonam Senge. Distinguishing the Views.
Śāntarakṣita. Tattvasaṅgraha; Kamalashīla. Bhāvanākrama I–III.
Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra). I.154–155 (and I.28–29 for basis-of-purification).
Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya (Heart Sūtra).