Nāgārjuna never says "the ultimate of everything is dependent origination", Madhyamaka simply says that so-called conditioned dharmas originate dependently and therefore do not actually originate at all, hence they are unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated etc. This is the heart of the soteriology of Buddhism.smcj wrote:Actually my current understanding Is that is exactly what Nagarjuna meant. When Gelugpas talk about their "non-affirming negation" they are specifically not affirming that there is anything more to it. You have to leave Madhyamaka and enter Yogacara or Shentong to get any kind of "nothing-yet-more-than-nothing".As for Nagarjuna, I find that his arguments can end up leading people (e.g. Garfield) to argue that Nagarjuna was basically saying that the ultimate of everything is dependent origination. In other words, there is nothing that is unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated. This directly contradicts Udana 8.3 and fatally impacts the soteriology of Buddhism. I doubt that this was the conclusion intended by Nagarjuna.
So no, what you are asserting is not what Nāgārjuna meant. And one can actually argue that Yogācāra is an inferior view to Madhyamaka since it ends up a realist view. Gzhan stong is nothing more than a post-meditative interpretation and does not contradict Madhyamaka if properly understood.