Āryanāgārjuna’s tetralemma:
nasvāto nāpiparato nadvābhyāṃ nāpyahetutaḥ
Neither from self nor other neither both nor acausally
(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Pratyayaparīkṣāparivartaḥ)
These are negations of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma terminological categories, svāto being related to svābhāva, the svā- being in turn related to “to be”, for instance look at the French être as it appears in the reflexive, suis. v --> w --> u. Svā-/sva-, suis. Note that this is not a chronological argument that one comes from the other. Just an illustration of a relation between languages.
svayaṃkṛtaṃ, self-created, or “from self” for our practical purposes.
paraṃkṛtaṃ, other-created, or “from (an)other” for our practical purposes. Para- is functioning similar as it does in English here, similar to its usage in the construct paranormal, other than or apart from normal.
Nasvāto = asvayaṃkṛtaṃ. Not from self.
Nāpiparato = aparaṃkṛtaṃ. Not from other.
Nadvābhyāṃ = nasvāto nāpiparato, not from either.
See SN 12.17 Acelakassapasutta: ‘sayaṅkataṃ dukkhaṃ?, […] paraṅkataṃ dukkhaṃ?, […] sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca dukkhaṃ?
Notice SF 169 Sarvāstivādin Acelasūtra: asvayaṃkāraparakārahetusamutpānnaṃ, ahetusamutpānnaṃ: arisen without causality, compare with MMK1: nāpyahetutaḥ
Does asvayaṃkāraparakārahetusamutpānnaṃ indeed correspond with nāpyahetutaḥ? does the a- preffix negative each subsequent infix (-svayaṃkāra-, -parakāra-, -hetu) or does it only negative the first infix? Is this romanization missing a substantial deal of macrons?