How are the 8 negations of nagarjuna derived?

[nichiren-123]

I'm currently reading nagarjuna's middle way and it starts with the dedicatory verse:
"...there is neither cessation nor origination, neither anhilation nor the eternal, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going..."

I want to know the basic rundown of why these eight negations are so?

[markatex]

Why they’re negated or where the ideas of cessation, origination, etc., come from?

He’s saying that true reality is beyond all concepts.

[Tsongkhapafan]

I'm currently reading nagarjuna's middle way and it starts with the dedicatory verse:
"...there is neither cessation nor origination, neither anhilation nor the eternal, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going..."

I want to know the basic rundown of why these eight negations are so?

Because the negation of inherent existence of those eight extremes is the negation of inherent existence of all phenomena; it covers everything.

[Grigoris]

I'm currently reading nagarjuna's middle way and it starts with the dedicatory verse:
"...there is neither cessation nor origination, neither anhilation nor the eternal, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going..."

I want to know the basic rundown of why these eight negations are so?

What do you mean by "why"?

[Malcolm]

I'm currently reading nagarjuna's middle way and it starts with the dedicatory verse:
"...there is neither cessation nor origination, neither anhilation nor the eternal, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going..."

I want to know the basic rundown of why these eight negations are so?

Because whatever arises dependently neither ceases nor arises, is neither annihilated nor permanent, is neither one nor many, and neither comes nor goes. This is why Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha, the best of teachers, who taught dependent origination for the pacification of all proliferation.

[stevie]

I'm currently reading nagarjuna's middle way and it starts with the dedicatory verse:
"...there is neither cessation nor origination, neither anhilation nor the eternal, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going..."

I want to know the basic rundown of why these eight negations are so?

There are many explanations (e.g. see above) and all are inconsistent because language has to be used and thus necessarily deceptive concepts.

I can offer another inconsistent explanation:
If cessation were a valid phenomenon there would be something that ceases. But such a 'something' cannot be found under Madhyamaka reasoning analysis. But when there is nothing that ceases (under analysis!) then there is (ultimately) no cessation. The same applies to origination, be it called dependent or not, and the other imputations.
So the dedicatory verse already presupposes the kind of reasoning analysis that Nagarjuna is going to apply in his verses that follow. He applies Prasanga type reasonings that entail absurd or contradicting consequences under the premise that non-analytical (!!) everyday views 'of the (buddhist) world' would be valid. Why buddhist world? Considering the topics he covers his intended audience are buddhists that harbor worldly views.

Speaking from within my own sphere of experience Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka approach and such sayings like this dedicatory verse would boil down to mere intellectual gymnastics for me if I failed to identify my spontaneous non-analytical cognition with its inherent imputation of an illusory truly existing 'substance' or 'substratum' or 'essence' (to mention three equivalent terms in this context). Because it is the illusory 'felt' validity of this spontaneous non-analytical everyday cognition that is undermined by Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka reasoning analysis.