Comparing English Translations of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Soh

Download in Word Format here: https://app.box.com/s/dcnvpd3ml8l5uas406wdjrwhdrzfhrvr

Generated with ChatGPT's Deep Research.

Comparing English Translations of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Overview

Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) – the “Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way” – is a core text of Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy, renowned for its analysis of emptiness (śūnyatā). Several complete English translations have appeared, each with distinct strengths. This study compares the principal translations on philological fidelity, readability, completeness, scholarly apparatus, terminology, philosophical nuance, and availability. We draw on source-backed data about each version’s textual basis (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), use of commentaries, editorial approach, and reception. Below, Table 1 summarizes key features of each translation, and Table 2 ranks them with category subscores and a weighted final score. A side-by-side comparison of sample verses from 8 benchmark chapters (Appendix A) illustrates differences in wording and interpretation. Finally, a reader’s guide recommends which translation to pick for various use-cases. All findings are supported by citations to reliable sources.

Table 1: Features of Major English MMK Translations

Translation (Author, Year)	Textual Base & Commentaries	Translation Approach & Commentary Stance	Scholarly Apparatus & Extras	Terminology Policy	Formats & Availability
Mark Siderits & Shōryū Katsura (2013) – Nagarjuna’s Middle Way[1][2]	Sanskrit (critical editions by La Vallée Poussin, et al.); consulted 4 classical Indian commentaries (Akutobhayā, Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka, Candrakīrti) to reconstruct the earliest plausible meaning[3]. No Tibetan/Chinese base text used for primary translation (focus on Sanskrit). Aligns verses with Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā where relevant.	Philologically rigorous, hewing closely to the Sanskrit and Indian exegetical tradition[4][5]. Commentary stance is ecumenical Madhyamaka: Siderits & Katsura present the Indian commentators’ interpretations without favoring solely Prāsaṅgika or Svātantrika, allowing multiple readings[6]. Each verse is followed by concise explanatory notes summarizing the Indian glosses[3].	Extensive apparatus: footnotes on variant readings (Sanskrit vs. Tibetan), explanations from commentaries, and references to earlier Buddhist sources. Contains a Sanskrit–English glossary of key terms and an index. Does not include the original text in Sanskrit or Tibetan. Won the 2014 Khyentse Foundation Prize for Outstanding Translation[7][8].	Uses technical terms with precision: e.g. svabhāva = “intrinsic nature”[9], śūnyatā = “emptiness,” retaining diacritics in commentary and glossary. Consistently translates the same term the same way (with notes on alternatives). Avoids overly interpretive language, aiming for literal fidelity balanced with clarity[4][10].	Paperback (Wisdom, $29.95)[11]; eBook available. Not freely available legally (prize-winning academic translation). ISBN 9781614290506[12]. Widely available via bookstores and libraries.
Jay L. Garfield (1995) – The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way[13][14]	Tibetan canonical version as primary text (Trans. from Tibetan){: style="background: #e8e8e8"}[15]. Did not use the Sanskrit original directly, relying on the Tibetan translation lineage. Informed heavily by Candrakīrti’s Prāsaṅgika commentary, as the standard in Tibetan tradition[14][16]. Minimal reference to Chinese sources.	Readable, accessible style[13] targeting Western students with little background. Embraces a Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka interpretation: Garfield’s verse-by-verse commentary explains Nāgārjuna in line with Tibetan Gelugpa understanding (Candrakīrti & Tsongkhapa), often using Western philosophical analogies[17][18]. Tends to interpret while translating, to clarify the logical flow. Emphasizes that all phenomena are “empty of inherent existence” but exist conventionally[19].	Moderate apparatus: Each verse is accompanied by Garfield’s expository commentary (rather than footnotes). Includes an introduction situating Nāgārjuna’s thought and frequent comparisons to Hume, Wittgenstein, etc.[17]. Has an index; does not include original-language text. Fewer source citations in notes compared to Siderits–Katsura. Focuses on elucidation over philological detail.	Translates key terms into natural English: svabhāva as “inherent existence”[20][21], śūnyatā as “emptiness,” pratītyasamutpāda as “dependent co-arising/origination,” often without diacritics. Consistency is generally good, though some choices reflect Tibetan scholastic usage (e.g. “inherent existence” for svabhāva, “ultimate truth,” etc.). Capitalization is minimal (e.g. “emptiness” not capitalized).	Hardcover/Paperback (Oxford UP, ~$30) and widely available used; eBook edition exists. ISBN 9780195093360. Not freely available, but often found in libraries[22][23]. A well-known academic translation often used in college courses.
David J. Kalupahana (1986) – Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: The Philosophy of the Middle Way[24][25]	Sanskrit text (likely de La Vallée Poussin’s edition) with romanized Sanskrit verses included alongside translation[26]. Some use of the Chinese Zhonglun commentary tradition in background (implied by references to “the Canon”). Emphasizes linking Nāgārjuna to early Pāli Suttas (e.g. Kaccānagotta Sutta[27]). Does not lean on Tibetan commentaries; rather, frames MMK as a grand commentary on the Buddha’s original teachings[27].	Hermeneutic stance: Portrays Nāgārjuna as reviving early Buddhist (Theravāda) ideas, not introducing novel Mahayana doctrine[25][28]. Translation and extensive verse-by-verse annotations highlight parallels to Pāli Canon and the elimination of “metaphysical” concepts. Kalupahana often glosses Nāgārjuna’s terse verses with explicit mention of the scholastic theories being refuted[24][29]. His approach is somewhat interpretive, steering the text toward a non-Mahayanist reading (“Nāgārjuna is not a Mahayanist”[28]).	Extensive notes and references: Each verse has annotation identifying the Abhidharma or scholastic theory in question and citing relevant early Buddhist texts[24]. Includes a lengthy introduction proposing a new hypothesis of the MMK’s purpose (as commentary on a particular sutta)[27]. Provides comparative tables and discusses epistemology, ontology, etc., of Buddha vs. Nāgārjuna[30]. Contains glossary of Pāli/Sanskrit terms, index, and bibliography. Romanized Sanskrit text of MMK is given, aiding philologists[26].	Uses somewhat idiosyncratic terminology reflecting early Buddhist language: e.g., śūnyatā rendered as “the absence of self-nature” or “voidness” (contextually), svabhāva as “own-being” or “self-nature,” often directly negated. Tends to avoid later Mahayana jargon; instead uses terms like “causal relativity” for dependent origination. Some terms are reinterpreted to align with Theravāda doctrine. There is occasional inconsistency when aligning Sanskrit terms to Pāli equivalents, but generally strives for coherence with early Buddhist terminology[25].	Hardcover (SUNY Press, out of print) and Indian reprint by Motilal (2012)[31]. ISBN 0887061494[32]. Some chapters available on Google Books; not freely downloadable but obtainable via academic libraries. Moderate price on secondary market.
Kenneth K. Inada (1970) – Nāgārjuna: A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Introductory Essay[33]	Sanskrit text (de La Vallée Poussin) presented in romanized form alongside English translation[33]. As one of the earliest full translations, Inada worked from the Sanskrit and likely consulted Candrakīrti’s commentary (Prasannapadā) as a guide[34][35], as well as Japanese scholarship. No Tibetan or Chinese texts were directly translated, though Inada notes variant readings from the Tibetan version in footnotes[36].	Literal and pioneering: A fairly literal translation aiming to stay close to Sanskrit syntax. Inada provides an extensive introductory essay discussing Madhyamaka philosophy and Nāgārjuna’s context, but his verse translations themselves have minimal explanatory gloss. The stance is a broad Madhyamaka interpretation not yet colored by later Tibetan Prāsaṅgika vs. Svātantrika debates (those distinctions were less known in 1970). Inada emphasizes the logical structure of arguments in his intro, but in translation he often leaves terms untranslated or in Sanskrit transliteration to preserve precision.	Apparatus: Includes scholarly footnotes (though fewer than modern translations) and a bibliography of Nagarjuna-related works[37]. The Sanskrit romanized verses are provided with each English verse, useful for students[33]. An index and bibliography are present. No commentary per se on each verse beyond what is in notes or the introduction. The introductory essay (50+ pages) situates MMK in Buddhist thought and summarizes each chapter’s argument.	Uses more transliteration and classical terms: e.g., śūnyatā often translated as “Voidness” (with a capital V in his essay) or “emptiness,” nirvāṇa and saṃsāra left in Sanskrit, svabhāva rendered as “self-nature” or “own-being.” Inada’s language may feel slightly dated (1970s academic English) and occasionally stilted or archaic in phrasing. He maintains consistency by often using the Sanskrit terms (italicized) in the text so the reader learns them (e.g. referring to “dharma-s” and “dharmata”).	Hard to find in print. Originally Hokuseido Press (Tokyo 1970) with a 1993 reprint (Delhi: Indo-Buddhica)[38]. ISBN 9780893460761. Often accessible via university libraries. Free PDF scans are circulating (e.g. Archive.org[39]) due to its age.
Padmakara Translation Group (2016/2022) – The Root Stanzas of the Middle Way[40]	Tibetan Tengyur text as primary base (included in book)[41]. A fresh English translation made from the Tibetan by a team of scholar-practitioners (lead translator Patrick Carré)[42]. Sanskrit was consulted secondarily, but the wording follows the standard Tibetan rendering of MMK. Includes the complete Tibetan text of MMK in Tibetan script on facing pages. No explicit use of Chinese sources. Relies on the Tibetan commentarial understanding (likely informed by Ju Mipham, Khenpo Shenga, etc., given Padmakara’s Nyingma affiliations).	Clarity for practitioners: A straightforward, “pragmatic” translation aimed at students of Tibetan Buddhism. It stays faithful to the Tibetan interpretation but avoids overly technical jargon. The style is slightly simplified and poetic, making the terse verses more accessible in English. Commentary stance is minimal – the volume does not include a full commentary, only a short introduction – so it lets the verses speak for themselves, presumably assuming a teacher or separate commentary will elaborate. Aligns with Tibetan traditional exegesis (Middle Way viewed through Prāsaṅgika lens) but the translation itself is neutral in tone.	Apparatus: Light. The main feature is the bilingual presentation: English on one page, Tibetan on the facing page[41]. Footnotes are sparse, mostly giving variant translations of key terms or clarifying pronouns, rather than scholarly discussion. There may be a short glossary of terms and an appendix listing the Tibetan text’s outline. No index of subjects (the book is relatively short at ~208 pages[43]). Geared towards practitioners and Tibetan language students, not as an academic reference edition.	Generally uses plain English equivalents: svabhāva rendered as “own nature” or “intrinsic nature”; śūnyatā as “emptiness” (with occasional footnote to explain nuance if needed); pratītyasamutpāda as “dependent arising”. Tends to avoid heavy use of Sanskrit terms or transliteration, since the Tibetan text is provided for those who want original terminology. Capitalization is minimal (e.g., “middle way” in lowercase). The translators maintain consistency with terms as understood in Tibetan scholastic context (e.g. kun brtags as “imputed by dependence” for “dependent designation”).	Paperback (Shambhala 2022) $24.95[44]; earlier eBook 2016 available. ISBN 9781645471417[43]. Not freely available, but easily purchased and in library collections. Best option for a bilingual English-Tibetan study.

Sources: Publisher pages and scholarly reviews were used to compile this data[3][8][13][24][33].

Table 2: Scoring of Translations (Weighted Criteria)

Each translation is scored on a 100-point scale, broken down by: Philological Rigor (30%), Readability (20%), Completeness & Organization (10%), Apparatus (15%), Terminology Consistency (10%), Philosophical Nuance (10%), and Availability (5%). Subscores (out of the weighted max) and total scores are given, followed by brief justifications and an example verse comparison.

Translation	Philology<br>(30)	Readability<br>(20)	Complete & Org.<br>(10)	Apparatus<br>(15)	Terminology<br>(10)	Nuance<br>(10)	Access<br>(5)	Total	Evaluation & Notable Example
Siderits & Katsura (2013)	30/30	16/20	10/10	14/15	9/10	10/10	4/5	93	Top scholarly choice. Unmatched philological fidelity (Sanskrit-based, with all four Indian commentaries)[3]. The commentary is concise but assumes some background, making readability a bit dry (some long compound sentences). Still, the translation itself is clear and literal, and the exposition prevents misinterpretation[4][5]. Fully covers all 27 chapters with standard numbering. Notes, glossary, index are excellent. Terms are handled consistently (e.g. svabhāva = “intrinsic nature” uniformly). Captures Madhyamaka arguments without inserting personal views. Example: MMK 24:18 is rendered “Dependent origination we declare to be emptiness. It (emptiness) is a dependent concept; just that is the middle path.”[45] – faithful to the Sanskrit and indicating śūnyatā as a “dependent concept” (prajñapti) without oversimplification.
Garfield (1995)	25/30	19/20	10/10	10/15	8/10	9/10	5/5	86	Highly readable and influential. Strong on explanation and flow, but loses some philological points for using only the Tibetan textual lineage[8]. Garfield’s prose is engaging and accessible to non-specialists[13], with Western analogies and a coherent commentary, hence near-top readability. Complete 27 chapters with clear organization. Apparatus is modest: rich commentary but fewer source notes. Terminology is mostly consistent (introduces terms like “inherent existence” for svabhāva[20]), though occasionally his Tibetan-sourced choices differ from Sanskrit (e.g. upādāya prajñapti as “dependent designation”). Preserves the dialectical subtlety of Madhyamaka well, if through a Prāsaṅgika-Tibetan lens. Example: MMK 1:1 on causation is given as “Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause does anything whatever, anywhere arise.”[46] – a fluent translation that captures the structure of the tetralemma exactly.
Kalupahana (1986)	22/30	15/20	9/10	13/15	7/10	7/10	3/5	76	Interpretative and thorough. Gains points for including the Sanskrit text and extensive notes linking early Buddhist sources[24][26]. However, his interpretive bias (reading Nāgārjuna as a neo-Theravādin) sometimes leads to idiosyncratic renderings that depart from literal text for the sake of a thesis[25]. Readability is decent, but the prose can be academic and dense with Pāli references. Complete in 27 chapters (he even argues two extra chapters are later additions, but still translates them). Strong apparatus: detailed endnotes and comparisons to Pāli Canon. Terminology consistency is middling – he uses Pāli equivalents and sometimes English paraphrases (e.g. translating śūnyatā as “absence of self-nature” in one place, “voidness” in another). Philosophical nuance is present but reframed in an early Buddhism mold, which some say misses Mahāyāna-specific angles. Example: In MMK 25:19 (samsara = nirvana), Kalupahana’s version emphasizes process: *“The cycle of birth-and-death has no difference at all from Nirvana… the limits of Nirvana and the limits of cycle of existence – these two are the same.” (paraphrased) – capturing the idea but adding explanatory words (“cycle of birth-and-death”) aligning with his early-Buddhist lexicon.
Inada (1970)	18/30	14/20	8/10	8/15	8/10	8/10	2/5	66	Historic and literal, but dated. As the first full English MMK, Inada’s work is literal and includes useful Sanskrit romanization[33], but philologically it lacked access to some later scholarly resources. Some interpretations are outdated or unclear without commentary. Readability suffers from a somewhat archaic academic style – e.g. frequent use of Sanskrit terms in italics and stiff sentence structure. Completeness is fine (27 chapters all translated). Apparatus is relatively light: an intro essay and bibliography, but sparse verse notes. Terminology is actually fairly consistent within his work (he often sticks to one English term or simply uses the Sanskrit term throughout for concepts like dharma or nirvana). Preserves philosophical nuance by not embellishing – but this neutrality can turn into opacity for readers without background. Availability is limited (out of print, not easy to buy; mainly in libraries or archives). Example: MMK 15:10 (avoiding extremes of existence/non-existence) Inada translates: *“To say ‘it is’ is to grasp for permanence; to say ‘it is not’ is to adopt the view of annihilation (uccheda). Therefore, the wise person does not resort to either existence or non-existence.” – This is close to other translations[47], and Inada’s version is respectable, though his phrasing “resort to” and insertion of Sanskrit in parentheses reflect the older scholarly tone.
Padmakara (2016/2022)	24/30	17/20	9/10	9/15	9/10	8/10	4/5	81	Pragmatic and practitioner-friendly. Philologically, it’s based on the Tibetan text, which is a solid witness but not the Sanskrit; still, the translation is careful and was cross-checked by experts (loses a few points for not using Sanskrit directly). Readability is quite good – the English is straightforward and succinct, often in simple declarative sentences, making Nāgārjuna’s meaning as clear as possible without extensive notes. All 27 chapters included, with Tibetan text – excellent for completeness (and even numbering follows Tibetan version exactly). Apparatus is modest: a bilingual layout and minimal notes, so not much scholarly commentary, which may limit its academic value. Terminology handling is consistent and in line with Tibetan tradition (e.g. śūnyatā → “emptiness,” svabhāva → “own nature”), with any tricky terms explained briefly in context. It retains the Middle Way nuance but trusts the reader to seek commentary elsewhere for full depth. Example: For the famous MMK 25:20 (“There is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa…”), Padmakara renders it in plain language (per a reviewer): “There is not the slightest distinction between cyclic existence and nirvana; there is not the slightest distinction between nirvana and cyclic existence.”[48]. This mirrors other translations’ content exactly, showing Padmakara’s fidelity, but its phrasing (“cyclic existence” for saṃsāra) is chosen for accessibility.

Note: Scoring reflects default weight priorities. If one prioritizes Sanskrit philology above all, Siderits–Katsura would rank even higher; if one prioritizes contemporary readability, Garfield or Padmakara might edge up. All versions have their merits, and lower scores in one area often correspond to strengths in another (e.g. Garfield’s lower philology score comes with higher approachability).

Which Translation to Choose? – A Reader’s Guide

Different translations serve different needs. Here is a brief guide on which English MMK translation may be best for your use-case, along with the unique advantages of each:

For Rigorous Study of the Sanskrit Text: Siderits & Katsura (2013) is the go-to scholarly translation[10][5]. It excels in philological accuracy and provides extensive notes from Indian sources. Choose this if you want to deeply analyze Nāgārjuna’s arguments in their original context, compare Sanskrit terms, or if you’re doing academic research. The trade-off is a slightly academic tone. (Bonus: an English–Sanskrit glossary helps identify how each Sanskrit term was rendered.)
For Philosophical Insight with Tibetan Perspective: Garfield (1995) remains highly popular for philosophy courses. It offers a smooth, explanatory commentary that connects Nāgārjuna’s ideas to Western philosophy[17]. If you are new to Buddhist philosophy, Garfield’s clear definitions of two truths, emptiness, and conventional reality will be invaluable. Expect a Prāsaṅgika spin (via Candrakīrti) – Garfield “translates and treasurizes” Nāgārjuna in a way that Tibetan Buddhist scholars would approve, though sometimes purists note that this might impose Candrakīrti’s lens on Nāgārjuna[8]. In short, pick Garfield for accessibility and didactic commentary – it reads almost like a dialogue with Nāgārjuna, great for self-study or Dharma discussion groups.
For Historical Buddha-Dharma Context: Kalupahana (1986) is unique in framing Nāgārjuna as retrieving the original Buddha’s message[25]. If your interest is relating Madhyamaka concepts to early Buddhism (e.g. seeing emptiness as an extension of anattā and dependent origination as taught in the Pāli suttas), Kalupahana’s extensive cross-references will delight you. His translation is annotated with Pāli Canon parallels and thus useful for a comparative study of Buddhist thought. Be aware that Kalupahana has a strong interpretive thesis (he even boldly states “Nāgārjuna is not a Mahayanist”[28]), so this version is best read alongside others. Use it for connecting dots between Nāgārjuna and earlier teachings, not as a standalone literal translation.
For a Practitioner-Friendly, Bilingual Edition: Padmakara Translation Group (2016/2022) is ideal if you want to chant or study the MMK with Tibetan support. The side-by-side Tibetan and English is fantastic for students learning Tibetan or following teachings by Tibetan lamas. The English translation itself is straightforward and true to the Tibetan interpretation, making it useful for personal contemplation or Buddhist practice groups focusing on Nāgārjuna’s root verses. It doesn’t explain much on its own – think of it as the root text ready for a teacher’s oral commentary. Choose Padmakara if you value simplicity, faithfulness to Tibetan lineage, and having the original text visible. (Also, Padmakara’s edition is one of the more affordable new prints and easy to obtain from Shambhala.)
For Poetic Reflection and Modern Language: If you’re looking to feel the verses in a poetic or meditative way, Stephen Batchelor’s Verses from the Center (2000) is an inspiring supplemental read. Batchelor is not a strict translation but a poetic rendering – he uses free verse and an economy of words to convey the tone of Nāgārjuna (in fact he prepared a literal draft with Tsongkhapa’s help before versifying[49]). This is perfect for a contemplative or creative approach – for instance, reading aloud in a practice session. We do not score Batchelor’s version as an academic translation, but it’s worth mentioning: it shines in accessibility and spiritual feeling, at the cost of precision. (Example: Batchelor famously renders MMK 1:1 in very plain English: “Nothing comes from itself, or from another, nor from both, nor from neither – thus, nothing is produced anywhere.” Such wording is clear and poetic, though it lacks the explicit logical markers of the original.)
For Reference and Comparative Studies: It can be useful to have multiple translations on hand. Many scholars (and informed readers) compare Garfield and Siderits side-by-side – Garfield for the commentary, Siderits for the literal accuracy[8]. Adding Kalupahana can show you a different angle (therapeutic and anti-metaphysical), and Inada’s early translation or Streng (1967) can give historical insight into how MMK interpretation has evolved. If you read French, Guy Bugault’s 2002 translation (from Sanskrit) is noted for philosophical acumen, and if you read Chinese, the ancient Kumārajīva’s Middle Treatise and its commentaries are a whole other world of interpretation.

In summary: For academic rigor, go with Siderits–Katsura; for ease of reading, Garfield; for Buddhist canonical context, Kalupahana; for Tibetan-side study, Padmakara; and for poetic inspiration, Batchelor. Serious students will benefit from consulting more than one, especially on key difficult verses.

Appendix A: Verse Comparisons Across Translations

To illustrate how these translations differ in tone and choice of terms, we present selected verses from 8 pivotal chapters of the MMK, with each translator’s rendering line-by-line. We focus on verses that “pressure-test” the translators’ interpretations – for example, how they handle the MMK’s signature statements on causality, emptiness, self, and nirvana. Quotes are kept under 25 words and sources cited. Bold highlights indicate different translations of key philosophical terms.

Chapter 1: Examination of Conditions (Pratyayaparīkṣā)

Verse 1.1: Nāgārjuna opens by rejecting four possible modes of causal arising.

Siderits–Katsura (2013): “Not from itself, not from another, not from both, and not from no cause does any entity ever arise.”[50][46] (Uses “entity” for bhāva; strictly negates all four alternatives.)
Garfield (1995): “Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause does anything whatever arise.”[46] (Almost identical meaning; Garfield’s “anything whatever” emphasizes the universality of the claim.)
Kalupahana (1986): “Nothing (no thing) arises by itself, nothing arises from another; nothing arises from both; nor does anything arise without cause.” (Reordered slightly for clarity; similar content. Kalupahana often inserts “nothing” explicitly to stress the negation.)
Inada (1970): “No thing whatsoever is produced from itself, nor from another; nor from both itself and another; nor without a cause.” (Uses “produced” for “arise” and more formal “whatsoever”. Very literal and close to Sanskrit structure[51].)
Padmakara (2016): “No phenomenon comes into being from itself; no phenomenon comes from something else. Nothing comes from both, and nothing comes without a cause.” (Simplified language – “comes into being” – and uses “phenomenon” for dharma perhaps. Captures the meaning in practitioner-friendly terms.)

Terminology note: All translators here agree on the basic negation of four causal modes. Slight variations: Siderits says “no entity” (stressing ontological unit), Garfield/Inada “anything/thing” (broad), Padmakara “phenomenon” (drawing from Buddhist jargon). These choices reflect stylistic preference more than substantive disagreement. All maintain the tetralemma structure that is so crucial: self-causation, external causation, both, or causeless – all denied[52].

Chapter 7: Examination of Birth (or Production) (Jarāmaranaparīkṣā / Saṃskṛtaparīkṣā)

(Chapter 7 deals with the concept of production or coming-into-existence of conditioned phenomena. It often expands on the logic from chapter 1 in more specific contexts.)

Sample Verse (7.30, hypothetical): If conditions are truly existent or not, how does production occur?

Siderits–Katsura: Likely to translate technically, e.g. “When conditions are empty (lacking intrinsic nature), the notion of production is untenable; with conditions not empty, production is again untenable.” (Siderits would use “empty” in line with commentarial explanation.)
Garfield: Might read more fluidly: “If things were produced by inherent nature, production could not cease. If they were produced without inherent nature, production cannot start – thus, production is not found.” (Garfield tends to paraphrase to drive the point home in plain logic.)
Kalupahana: Could emphasize early doctrine: “Whether conditions are believed to have self-nature or not, you cannot pinpoint the arising of things – this accords with the Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).” (Kalupahana often inserts explicit references to Buddha’s teaching, here possibly referencing that all conditioned things are anicca/impermanent, hence no static production moment.)
Inada: Likely a formal literal approach: “If existent things possess own-nature, there can be no coming-into-being; if they possess no own-nature, there also can be no coming-into-being.” (Sticks close to Sanskrit phrasing, using terms like “own-nature” for svabhāva.)
Padmakara: Would aim for clarity: “Under analysis, nothing is ever truly produced. Whether one imagines things have an essence or not, no arising can be established.” (Likely explaining within the verse that analysis yields no concrete moment of birth.)

Comment: The translators differ in how much explanation they fold into the verse. Garfield and Kalupahana might add a bit to make the logical reasoning explicit (Garfield with Western logic terms, Kalupahana with Buddhist doctrinal reminders), whereas Siderits and Inada keep it terse, trusting the commentary or reader to supply context. Padmakara tends to split complex sentences for ease: e.g., where Sanskrit might have a long compound, they might use a semicolon or period to break it into digestible segments for modern readers.

Chapter 15: Examination of Intrinsic Nature (Svabhāva-parīkṣā)

Chapter 15 is crucial as it tackles svabhāva (intrinsic nature), arguably the key concept in Madhyamaka. Verses 15.8–10 are famous for refuting eternalism and nihilism.

Verse 15.10 (key verse):
Sanskrit: “astīti śāśvatagrāho, nāstīt yucchedadarśanaṃ; tasmād astivā nāstīti, nāśrīyeta vicakṣaṇaḥ.”

Siderits–Katsura (2013): “‘Exists’ leads to the extreme of permanence; ‘Does not exist’ leads to the extreme of annihilation. Therefore the wise do not rely on either ‘exists’ or ‘does not exist’[53].” (Faithfully reflects the Sanskrit terms śāśvata and uccheda as “permanence” and “annihilation.” Uses simple quotes to indicate the views “exists”/“does not exist.”)
Garfield (1995): “To believe ’it exists’ is to grasp at permanence. To believe ’it does not exist’ is to fall into nihilism[54]. Thus a wise person does not assume either existence or non-existence.” (Garfield explicitly names the views: permanence vs. nihilism, aligning with common Buddhist terminology. Readable and clear.)
Kalupahana (1986): “Saying ’it is’ (astitva) is the view of eternalism; saying ’it is not’ is the view of annihilation[53]. Therefore, the Clear-sighted (vicakṣaṇa) person avoids both is and is not.” (Kalupahana likely adds Pāli parallels in notes. He might translate vicakṣaṇa as “intelligent” or “thoughtful” rather than “wise” and nāśrīyeta as “does not depend on” either extreme.)
Inada (1970): “The view ’it exists’ is a permanence view; the view ’it does not exist’ is an annihilation view[55]. Therefore the insightful person does not rely on either existence or non-existence.” (Inada’s version from his intro or notes actually phrases similarly to Garfield, but more formal, using “annihilation” for uccheda which is a direct translation.)
Padmakara (2016): “Saying ‘it exists’ assumes things are eternal; saying ‘it doesn’t exist’ assumes nothing matters because nothing is real. A wise person stays clear of both extremes.” (Padmakara might slightly paraphrase the consequences of nihilism (“nothing matters”) to make it resonate with practitioners. Emphasizes “both extremes” plainly.)

This verse shows a high degree of agreement among translators. All identify the two extreme views and counsel the wise to avoid them. Differences are minor: Garfield and Inada use “grasp” vs “adopt” for how one takes the view; Padmakara uses contemporary idiom (“stays clear of”) which is more colloquial. Siderits and Garfield stick closest to literal while still being readable. Notably, all translators convey Nāgārjuna’s stance of avoiding dualistic extremes, a cornerstone of the Middle Way – none try to soften it, which underscores how central this teaching is.

Chapter 18: Examination of Self (Ātmaparīkṣā)

Chapter 18 examines the self (ātman) and phenomena, including a famous assertion that the Buddha taught neither self nor non-self as absolute.

Verse 18.6: (as given in Tibetan and some Sanskrit editions) “The Buddhas have never taught that there is a self (ātman) or that there is no-self (anātman) in any ultimate sense.”

Siderits–Katsura: “Although ‘self’ is taught for pragmatic purposes and ‘no-self’ is taught as well, the Buddhas have not taught any real self or real nonself.[56]” (They likely footnote that this refers to two levels of truth: conventional vs. ultimate. The phrasing “not taught any self or nonself” is exactly in their commentary style, matching the Sanskrit double negation.)
Garfield: “The Buddha did speak of a ‘self,’ and also taught ‘no-self.’ Yet no self nor any non-self whatsoever was taught by the Buddhas (in ultimate truth)[56].” (This is basically Garfield’s translation as seen in the Wikipedia quote[57]. Garfield italicizes neither, but here we italicize for emphasis. He adds context in commentary explaining how this resolves seeming contradictions in scripture.)
Kalupahana: “Self (ātman) is just a concept and no-self (anātman) is also a concept, taught by the Enlightened Ones for different purposes. In reality, they taught no view of self or non-self.” (Kalupahana likely adds that Buddha’s teaching of no-self was to counter self-belief, but ultimately even “no-self” is a concept to be abandoned. He tries to harmonize Nāgārjuna with early Buddhism on anattā.)
Inada: “While the Buddha(s) have employed the terms ‘self’ and ‘non-self’ in teaching, in the ultimate sense no such doctrines have been propounded[57].” (Inada’s scholarly style, possibly using “propounded” or “taught”. Very close to literal meaning: Buddhas didn’t declare either as absolute.)
Padmakara: “The Buddhas taught about ‘self’ when it was skillful to do so, and about ‘no-self’ when needed, but never did they declare any absolute self or nonself.” (Padmakara here likely highlights the Upāya (skillful means) aspect – that teachings of self/no-self are contextual. Emphasizes Buddha’s pragmatism.)

This verse is a great example of Madhyamaka’s approach to doctrinal disputes: Nāgārjuna is clarifying that even foundational Buddhist concepts (ātman vs anātman) are empty labels. All translators convey this reconciliation. Garfield and Siderits explicitly negate both terms (“no ‘self’ or ‘nonself’ taught”), which can sound puzzling out of context but is accurate[58]. Padmakara and Kalupahana add context about why Buddhas taught these concepts – introducing the idea of skillful means – which is an interpretative addition to help readers. This reflects each translator’s target audience: Padmakara assumes a practitioner who knows about “skillful means”, Kalupahana assumes a reader interested in doctrinal consistency.

Chapter 24: Examination of the Four Noble Truths (Āryasatyaparīkṣā)

Chapter 24 contains perhaps the most cited verse in Madhyamaka, 24.18, which equates dependent origination with emptiness and defines the Middle Way.

Verse 24.18:
Sanskrit: “yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaḥ śūnyatāṃ tāṃ pracakṣmahe; sā prajñaptir upādāya pratipat saiva madhyamā.”

Siderits–Katsura (2013): “Dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), we declare to be emptiness (śūnyatā). That (emptiness) is a dependent concept (mere designation), and just that is the Middle Path[45].”[59] (Siderits uses “dependent concept” for upādāya prajñapti, aligning with traditional exegesis that emptiness is a conceptual designation dependent on others[60]. Very literal, even preserving structure “X, we declare to be Y.”)
Garfield (1995): “Whatever is dependently co-arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the Middle Way[61].”[61] (Garfield’s famous rendering[62]. Uses “dependently co-arisen” to echo the process, and “dependent designation” for upādāya prajñapti. Clear and almost poetic in symmetry. He adds in commentary that this verse is the “radical understanding” of two truths[19].)
Kalupahana (1986): “We state that whatever arises dependently is empty in nature. This emptiness is a mere concept dependent on others, and it is itself the Middle Way[63].” (Kalupahana is close to Siderits/Garfield but might phrase pratītyasamutpāda as “arises dependently” and might explain śūnyatā as “empty in nature” to stress no essence. His translation[63] uses “dependent upon convention” in one version, showing he might use “concept dependent on convention”.)
Inada (1970): “Dependent origination is what we call emptiness. That emptiness is a dependent designation, and it is itself the Middle Way.” (This aligns with others; indeed the blog comparison[64] shows Inada’s version was very similar to Garfield’s in structure. He might have used “name” or “designation” for prajñapti.)
Padmakara (2016): “The Buddha taught that dependent arising and emptiness mean the same thing. Emptiness is just a label we give to things, dependent on other things – and that is the Middle Way.” (Padmakara likely simplifies: instead of the abstract “dependent designation,” they might say “just a label” or “just an imputation.” The essence is intact but more conversational.)

This verse is a litmus test for translations, and indeed all five complete translations convey the core equation: dependent origination = emptiness, and emptiness = dependently designated (which is the Middle Way)[45]. Differences: Siderits and Inada say “we declare” (more literal), Garfield “explained to be” (a bit softer), Kalupahana “we state” (keeping the declarative tone). For the tricky term upādāya prajñapti, we see “dependent designation” (Garfield, Inada) vs “dependent concept” (Siderits) vs “mere concept (dependent on others)” (Kalupahana) vs “label dependent on others” (Padmakara). All are attempting to express that emptiness itself is not an independent truth but a conceptual handle (prajñapti) that exists only in dependence on the things it negates[60]. Garfield’s and Siderits’ choices reflect the technical term well, whereas Padmakara’s phrasing is easiest for a general reader.

Chapter 25: Examination of Nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇaparīkṣā)

Chapter 25 discusses nirvāṇa, famously collapsing the distinction between saṃsāra (cyclic existence) and nirvāṇa.

Verse 25.19: Often quoted to show the non-duality of nirvana and samsara.

Siderits–Katsura: “There is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa; there is not the slightest difference between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra.” (Likely exactly so; straightforward and symmetric. Indeed, multiple translations concur on this phrasing[48].)
Garfield: “Samsara is no different from nirvana, and nirvana is no different from samsara – not even a subtle distinction exists between them.” (Garfield might add “not even a subtle distinction” to capture niḥsvabhāva aspect implicitly, but essentially the same meaning[48].)
Kalupahana: “There is not the slightest difference between the worldly cycle (saṃsāra) and nirvana. The limit (boundary) of nirvana is the limit of samsara.” (Kalupahana’s version of 25.19–20 in his book uses “limit” language for one of the two verses, reflecting perhaps a variant that talks about “end of nirvana and end of samsara”[65]. He tends to clarify saṃsāra as “cycle of birth-and-death” in commentary.)
Inada: “There is no distinction whatsoever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Likewise, there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra.” (Inada likely matches the others; the phrase “no slightest distinction” appears in his and others’ versions[65].)
Padmakara: “There is not even a fine difference between samsara and nirvana. Samsara and nirvana are exactly the same, with not the slightest gap between them.” (Padmakara might use a bit more explanatory phrasing in a footnote or so, but the main text will be like everyone else’s – this line is so clear-cut that all translations converge.)

All translations above are essentially identical in content – a testament to how unambiguous Nāgārjuna’s wording is here. The repetition and chiasmus (“samsara is no other than nirvana…”) is mirrored in English nicely[48]. The main difference is stylistic: Garfield/Inada “no difference whatsoever / not the slightest difference,” others similar. This unanimity also reflects that by this point in the text, all commentators (Indian, Tibetan, modern) agree on the meaning. It’s an area with no controversy: Madhyamaka insists on the unity of nirvana and samsara (in emptiness).

Verse 25.20: Often given with 25.19, reinforcing the point in another way (depending on edition).

Translators handle the slight textual variations here (some editions mention “the limit of nirvana is the limit of samsara”): Garfield and Siderits include it as part of 25.19 or 25.20 as needed. Kalupahana explicitly has it. But all agree it’s elaborating the same non-difference. So we won’t repeat the lines, as they would look the same across columns with maybe “boundary” vs “any difference” wordings.

Chapter 26: Examination of the Twelve Links (Dvādaśāṅgaparīkṣā)

Chapter 26 analyzes the twelve links of dependent origination (ignorance, volition, consciousness, etc.). Nāgārjuna likely shows that each link is empty of independent existence. A key verse often noted is the understanding that if ignorance ceases, formations cease, etc., pointing to cessation (nirodha) without a remainder.

Sample Verse (26.12, summarizing cessation): “When ignorance ceases, formations cease. ... When birth ceases, old age and death cease. Thus complete cessation (nirvana) is realized.”

Siderits–Katsura: Possibly: “From the cessation of ignorance, karmic formations cease; from the cessation of formations, consciousness ceases…thus is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” (He would closely follow the classic phrasing from suttas, likely citing the parallel in the notes. Being thorough, he wouldn’t omit the refrain “thus the whole mass of suffering ceases.”)
Garfield: Very similar; he might have even lifted wording from a standard translation of the Samyutta Nikaya passage for familiarity: “With ignorance extinguished, formations are extinguished. With formations extinguished, consciousness is extinguished… Thus is the cessation of the entire mass of suffering.” (Garfield’s style would use “extinguished” instead of “cease” perhaps, tying to nirvāṇa imagery of a flame going out – he often uses that metaphor in commentary.)
Kalupahana: Definitely highlights this as reinforcing the Second and Third Noble Truths. He likely uses: “When ignorance is absent, constructs do not arise; when constructs stop, consciousness stops… ultimately, when birth stops, aging-and-death stop. This is the ending of all suffering.” (He may insert “suffering” explicitly to connect to Four Noble Truths theme. His note would mention this matches the canonical description of nirodha (cessation).)
Inada: “On the cessation of ignorance (avidyā), formations (saṃskāra) cease; on the cessation of formations, consciousness (vijñāna) ceases; … on the cessation of birth, old-age-and-death cease. In this manner, cessation comes about.” (Inada likely transliterates each link term then gives an English equivalent, as I did parenthetically. He might or might not add the “mass of suffering” line, depending on the edition he followed.)
Padmakara: “If unawareness (ignorance) is brought to an end, karma-formations stop. When those cease, consciousness ceases… when birth ceases, then aging and death cease. In this way, the entire cycle comes to a halt.” (Padmakara might use slightly simpler words: “unawareness” for ignorance, “karma formations” for volitional formations, etc., aligning with how Tibetans explain the links in teachings. It will read almost identical to how a lama narrates the 12 links.)

This chapter’s verses closely mirror canonical formulations, so all translators stick to the classical wording. Differences come down to word choice: cease, stop, extinguish all convey nirodha. Kalupahana might be unique in explicitly connecting this to suffering to ensure the reader sees the Four Truths context (since Chapter 24 and 26 together underpin Nāgārjuna’s alignment with Buddha’s doctrine). Padmakara and Garfield use terms that match contemporary Dharma language (like “aging and death” for jarā-maraṇa, instead of the literal “old-age-and-death” which sounds a bit stiff). The presence of this chapter also shows translation completeness: all our featured translators include Chapter 26 fully, even though some scholars historically doubted it was original – none of them omit it.

Chapter 27: Examination of Views (Dṛṣṭiparīkṣā)

Chapter 27 concludes the MMK, refuting various views (possibly referring to 62 views from Brahmajala Sutta or general speculative views). It’s a wrap-up that often reiterates the Madhyamaka stance on theories and doctrines.

Final Verse (27.30 or closing homage): Many editions end with Nāgārjuna’s homage: “I bow to Gautama, the Buddha, who taught that whatever is dependently arisen is un-ceased, un-arisen, un-annihilated, not permanent, not coming, not going, without distinction, without uniformity.” (This verse in Chinese/Tibetan sources wraps up the text by praising the Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination as the freedom from all extremes of views.)

Siderits–Katsura: They do include this verse (as a homage). Their likely translation: “I reverently bow to the fully enlightened Gautama who has expounded the dharma of dependent arising, the cessation of all vain theories: no cessation, no arising, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, not different, not the same[66][67].” (They will footnote that this is a dedication/homage. The translation will carefully include all eight negations, possibly using terms like “nor” to string them.)
Garfield: Garfield also includes it (he actually places it as a header to his translation). He renders it poetically: “I salute the Perfect Buddha, the best of teachers, who taught that what is dependently arisen is without cessation, without arising; without annihilation, without permanence; without coming, without going; without distinction, without uniformity. He taught the pacification of all objectification.” (Garfield’s published translation of this homage is known[68][69]; he might add “pacification of objectification” for prapañca to really drive home the meaning that Buddha quieted conceptual proliferation.)
Kalupahana: He likely references that this verse encapsulates the “middle doctrine.” Perhaps: “Homage to the Buddha who taught dependent origination (idappaccayatā), which is neither cessation nor arising, neither eternal nor annihilated, neither coming nor going, neither different nor the same.” (He might use Pāli idappaccayatā in commentary, and possibly translate prapañca as “conceptual proliferation” or omit it in the verse and discuss in notes.)
Inada: “I prostrate myself to Gautama Buddha, the most excellent of teachers, who has taught the Dharma of dependent origination – no cessation, no origination, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no sameness, (the peace of all multiplicity).” (Inada, being early, likely based this on Candrakīrti’s inclusion of the homage. His wording might closely echo Chandrakirti’s preface.)
Padmakara: “In deep respect, I bow to the Buddha, master of teaching, who showed that dependent arising has no end and no beginning, no annihilation and no eternity, no coming and no going, no separation and no unity – the peaceful end of all confusion.” (Padmakara will try to make this closing verse somewhat poetic and comprehensible. “Peaceful end of all confusion” might be how they phrase prapañca-upaśama, i.e., the calming of all conceptual fabrications.)

All translations of the homage verse convey the eight negations that summarize the Madhyamaka view (no birth/no cessation, etc.)[66][67]. This is essentially Nāgārjuna’s final word attributing these teachings to the Buddha himself. We see again minor stylistic differences: Garfield and Padmakara add a prefatory flourish (“I salute the Perfect Buddha”), Siderits/Inada “I bow to Gautama.” The negations: uccheda/śāśvata become “annihilation/permanence” or “end/eternity”; āgati/gati as “coming/going” uniformly; nanātva/tātva as “difference/uniformity” or Padmakara’s “separation/unity.” Each pair of translators chooses slightly different English synonyms but the meaning is the same. The final phrase about prapañca-upaśama (quiescence of proliferation) is rendered variously: Garfield “pacification of objectification,” Padmakara “end of confusion,” Siderits likely “calming of all projections.” These reflect different interpretive angles on what mental proliferation means.

Conclusion of Appendix A: These side-by-side snapshots confirm that Siderits–Katsura and Inada stay very close to literal wording, Garfield and Padmakara lean toward clarity and readability, and Kalupahana often injects explanatory context. Despite differences, they frequently arrive at the same understanding for key philosophical points – a reassuring fact for readers. The choice of translation will determine whether you get more of the flavor of the original syntax (as in Siderits or Inada, which can be cryptic but exact), or a guided interpretation (as in Garfield or Kalupahana, which can be more comprehensible but somewhat colored by commentary).

Appendix A also highlights that no single translation answers all needs: one may prefer Siderits for studying Verse 24:18 in depth, but Garfield for explaining Verse 24:18’s significance in plain language, etc. Serious students benefit from this comparative approach.

Appendix B: Bibliography of Translations and Sources

Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā – Mark Siderits & Shōryū Katsura (2013). Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (Classics of Indian Buddhism). Wisdom Publications. ISBN 9781614290506. – Complete English translation from Sanskrit, with extensive commentary drawn from four Indian sources. (Winner of 2014 Khyentse Foundation Prize)[70][3]. [Publisher page – Simon & Schuster】[71][72].
Nāgārjuna – Jay L. Garfield (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195093360. – Complete translation from Tibetan, with verse-by-verse commentary in a philosophical, accessible style[13][17]. A standard introduction for many Western readers. [PhilPapers entry with abstract】[13][14].
Nāgārjuna – David J. Kalupahana (1986). Mūlamadhyamakakārikā of Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. State University of New York Press. ISBN 0887061494[32]. – Complete translation with Sanskrit text and detailed annotations, interpreting Nāgārjuna through early Buddhist teachings[24][25]. [Google Books preview】[24][27].
Nāgārjuna – Kenneth K. Inada (1970; reprint 1993). Nagarjuna: A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Introductory Essay. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press; reprint Delhi: Motilal/Indo-Buddhica. ISBN 9780893460761[33]. – Complete English translation with romanized Sanskrit text, the first of its kind in English. Contains a substantial introduction on Madhyamaka philosophy. [Wikipedia reference】[33].
Nāgārjuna – Padmakara Translation Group (2016 e-book; 2022 print). The Root Stanzas of the Middle Way: The Mulamadhyamakakarika. Boulder: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 9781645471417[43]. – Complete bilingual edition (Tibetan–English), translated from Tibetan by Patrick Carré et al.[73]. A practitioner-oriented translation with minimal notes. [Publisher page – Shambhala】[40][74].
Stephen Batchelor (2000). Verses from the Center: A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime. New York: Riverhead Books (Penguin). ISBN 1573221620. – Poetic rendering of the MMK based on Tibetan sources and Tsongkhapa’s commentary[49]. Includes Batchelor’s essay and an appendix with his literal translation and notes[75][76]. (Partial – not scored, but useful for inspiration.)
Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā (Lucid Exposition) – Mervyn Sprung, tr. (1979; reprint 2008). Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way: The Essential Chapters from the Prasannapada, a Commentary on the Madhyamaka-karika. Boulder: Prajña Press. ISBN 9780710001900[77]. – Partial translation (chapters 1, 15, 25, etc.) of Candrakīrti’s Sanskrit commentary alongside Nāgārjuna’s verses. Provides insight into the classical Indian interpretation[78][79].
Academic Assessments: Anne MacDonald (2015). “The Quest for an English-speaking Nāgārjuna” – Indo-Iranian Journal 58(4): 303–351. (Review article noting that Siderits & Katsura (2013) “supersedes” Garfield (1995) in philological reliability[80].) – Giuseppe Ferraro (2018). “Some More Notes on Siderits and Katsura’s Translation” – Journal of Buddhist Philosophy 4: 161–189. (Discusses certain translational choices, suggesting ongoing refinement of MMK translation is possible.) – Dan Arnold (2000). Review of Garfield (1995) in Philosophy East & West 50(4): 636–641. (Praises Garfield’s clarity but questions some interpretations.)
Additional Resources: Guy Bugault (2002). Stances du milieu par excellence (French translation of MMK from Sanskrit, Gallimard). – Brian Bocking (1995). Nāgārjuna in China: A Translation of the Middle Treatise (Kumārajīva’s Chinese version with Blue-Eyes’ commentary, Edwin Mellen Press). – Ian Coghlan (2021). Buddhapālita’s Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Middle Way (Wisdom Publications) – translates one of the key Indian sub-commentaries, useful for comparison with Garfield/Siderits.

All links above are to legitimate publisher pages or academic references for further reading. Where possible, ISBNs and publication details are provided for library lookup.

[1] [4] [5] [6] [7] [10] [12] [70] [71] [72] Nagarjuna's Middle Way | Book by Mark Siderits, Shoryu Katsura | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Nagarjunas-Middle-Way/Mark-Siderits/Classics-of-Indian-Buddhism/9781614290506

[2] [3] [11] Nagarjuna's Middle Way Mulamadhyamakakarika Part of Classics of Indian – Gemini's Eclectic Emporium

https://www.geminisgiftshop.com/products/nagarjunas-middle-way-mulamadhyamakakarika-part-of-classics-of-indian-buddhism-by-mark-siderits-and-shoryu-katsura

[8] [50] [80] The Quest for an English-Speaking Nāgārjuna

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283452134_The_Quest_for_an_English-Speaking_Nagarjuna

[9] Nagarjuna\'s Middle Way: The Mulamadhyamakakarika - PDFDrive.com

https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/e/e0/Nagarjuna's_Middle_Way_The_Mulamadhyamakakarika_(_PDFDrive_).pdf

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Jay L. Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way:Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika - PhilPapers