Has Candrakīrti refuted a Humean account of causation?

Mādhyamikas frequently claim that the emptiness of all dharmas follows from the fact that they originate. This claim is in some tension with Madhyamaka’s alleged thesislessness, a stance that seems to entail that there can be no master argument for emptiness—that Madhyamaka can only refute specific formulations of realism about dharmas and cannot offer a definitive refutation of all possible realist positions. It is thus worth investigating whether the argument from origination actually succeeds in establishing emptiness. A crucial part of the argument seeks to show that origination from distinct cause and conditions is incoherent. The argument typically deploys the three-times strategy, relying on the point that effect succeeds cause, and pointing out that the entity h that is alleged to bring about the origination of the entity in question p cannot be said to be a cause—to perform the function of originating—when p does not yet exist, nor when p does exist, and that there is no third time that is somehow intermediate between the two. I assess this and other arguments deployed by Candrakīrti in his defense of the view (MAv 6.103) that all things lack intrinsic nature. In doing so, I try to respond to Westerhoff’s recent criticisms of a regularity theory of causation, a conception meant to evade the difficulties of the ‘power’ conception of causes.