Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One

《中論》有五百偈，龍樹菩薩之所造也。以中為名者，照其實也；以論為稱者，盡其言也。實非名不悟，故寄中以宣之；言非釋不盡，故假論以明之。其實既宣、其言既明，於菩薩之行、道場之照朗然懸解矣。夫滯惑生於倒見，三界以之而淪溺；偏悟起於厭智，耿介以之而致乖。故知大覺在乎曠照、小智纏乎隘心，照之不曠則不足以夷有無一道俗、知之不盡則未可以涉中途泯二際，道俗之不夷、二際之不泯，菩薩之憂也。是以龍樹大士，析之以中道，使惑趣之徒望玄指而一變；括之以即化，令玄悟之賓喪諮詢於朝徹。蕩蕩焉，真可謂坦夷路於沖階、敞玄門於宇內，扇慧風於陳枚、流甘露於枯悴者矣。夫百梁之搆興則鄙茅茨之仄陋，覩斯論之宏曠則知偏悟之鄙倍。幸哉此區之赤縣，忽得移靈鷲以作鎮；險陂之邊情，乃蒙流光之餘惠。而今而後，談道之賢始可與論實矣。雲天竺諸國敢預學者之流，無不翫味斯論以為喉衿，其染翰申釋者甚亦不少。今所出者，是天竺梵志名賓伽羅、秦言青目之所釋也。其人雖信解深法而辭不雅中，其中乖闕煩重者法師皆裁而裨之，於經通之理盡矣，文或左右未盡善也。《百論》治外以閑邪，斯文袪內以流滯，《大智釋論》之淵博，《十二門觀》之精詣，尋斯四者，真若日月入懷，無不朗然鑒徹矣。予翫之味之，不能釋手，遂復忘其鄙拙託悟懷於一序，並目品義題之於首。豈期能釋耶？蓋是欣自同之懷耳。

The Madhyamaka Treatise has five hundred verses and was composed by the Bodhisattva Nagarjuna ("Bodhisattva" is short for bodhisattva, one who seeks awakening and also liberates beings). It takes "Middle" as its name in order to illuminate the true reality it sets out to reveal; it takes "Treatise" as its designation in order to say all that can be said. True reality cannot be entered without a name, so it borrows "Middle" to proclaim it; words cannot be fully expressed without explanation, so it borrows "Treatise" to elucidate them. Once true reality has been proclaimed and the words made clear, the practice of Bodhisattvas and the illumination at the site of the Way are all brightly opened up. Obstructing confusion arises from inverted views, and the three realms (the desire realm, form realm and formless realm) sink because of them; one-sided awakening arises from the small wisdom of weariness and renunciation, and the rigid and narrow go astray because of it. So one should know: great awakening lies in broad illumination, while petty cleverness is tangled in narrowness of mind. If the illumination is not broad, it is not enough to level existence and non-existence, the homeless and the householder into one road; if the knowing is not thorough, one cannot yet walk the Middle Way and efface the two sides of birth and death and nirvana (the state in which afflictions cease and one no longer revolves in birth and death). That the homeless and the householder are not leveled and the two sides are not effaced is exactly what Bodhisattvas worry about. Therefore Master Nagarjuna analyzed with the Middle Way, so that those caught in confusion, looking toward its profound direction, turn around at once; and he drew things together with "the present moment is itself transformation," so that those already profoundly awakened need not even inquire about "sudden awakening between dawn and dusk." Vast and boundless, one could truly say it lays a level road to the steps of empty serenity and opens the mysterious gate to the whole world, blows the wind of wisdom on withered branches and pours sweet dew on those who have wilted. Once a great hall of a hundred pillars stands, one finds thatched huts narrow and mean; seeing the breadth of this treatise, one knows how doubly shallow one-sided awakening is. How fortunate that this vast Chinese land has suddenly moved Vulture Peak to take as its refuge; even the dangerous and remote frontier mood has been touched by its lingering radiance. From now on the worthy who discuss the Way can discuss true reality together. In the countries of India, none who dared count themselves among scholars did not turn this treatise over like their throat and collar, and quite a few took up the pen to make commentaries on it. What is translated now is the commentary made by the Indian Brahmin named Pingala, called Qingmu (Blue Eyes) in Chinese. Though this man believed and understood the profound Dharma, his writing was not elegant and moderate enough; where it was mistaken, incomplete or redundant, the Dharma Master trimmed and corrected it all, so the principle that connects sutras and treatises is fully there, though the wording may have variants and is not yet perfect. The Hundred Treatise counters non-Buddhists to guard against heresy; this text clears away inner obstruction and lets it flow; the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise is vast and erudite, and the Twelve Gates Treatise is precise and profound; seeking these four texts is truly like holding the sun and moon in one's bosom, and all is brightly illuminated to the end. I turned it over again and again and could not put it down, and so, not caring for my own coarseness and clumsiness, I entrusted my small understanding to this preface and set the main idea of each chapter at the head of the fascicle. How could I hope that I could truly explain it? It is only that I rejoice to share the author's mind.

中論觀因緣品第一(十六偈)

Madhyamaka Treatise, Chapter One: Examination of Conditions (sixteen verses)

龍樹菩薩造梵志青目釋

Verses composed by Bodhisattva Nagarjuna; commentary by the Brahmin Qingmu.

姚秦三藏鳩摩羅什譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Kumarajiva of the Later Qin, of the Yao Qin dynasty.

不生亦不滅，不常亦不斷，

Not arising, and not ceasing; not permanent, and not annihilated,

不一亦不異，不來亦不出。

Not one, and not different; not coming from elsewhere, and not going out elsewhere.

能說是因緣，善滅諸戲論，

The Buddha could teach such dependent origination, skillfully quieting all conceptual proliferation,

我稽首禮佛，諸說中第一。

I bow my head in homage to the Buddha; of all teachers, this is the foremost.

問曰：何故造此論？

The questioner said: Why was this treatise composed?

答曰：有人言萬物從大自在天生、有言從韋紐天生、有言從和合生、有言從時生、有言從世性生、有言從變生、有言從自然生、有言從微塵生。有如是等謬故，墮於無因、邪因、斷常等邪見，種種說我我所，不知正法。佛欲斷如是等諸邪見令知佛法故，先於聲聞法中說十二因緣，又為已習行有大心堪受深法者以大乘法說因緣相，所謂一切法不生不滅、不一不異等，畢竟空、無所有。如《般若波羅蜜》中說：佛告須菩提：「菩薩坐道場時，觀十二因緣，如虛空不可盡。」佛滅度後，後五百歲像法中，人根轉鈍、深著諸法，求十二因緣、五陰、十二入、十八界等決定相，不知佛意，但著文字，聞大乘法中說畢竟空，不知何因緣故空，即生疑見：若都畢竟空，云何分別有罪福報應等？如是則無世諦、第一義諦。取是空相而起貪著，於畢竟空中生種種過。龍樹菩薩為是等故，造此中論。

The answerer said: Some say that all things arise from the great god Mahesvara, some say from Visnu, some say from the union of various conditions, some say from time, some say from primal nature (the fundamental self-nature posited by the Samkhya school), some say from transformation, some say they exist naturally, and some say from atoms. Because of such errors, they fall into wrong views such as no cause, wrong cause, annihilation and permanence, variously establishing "self" and "what belongs to self," and not knowing the true Dharma. In order to cut off such wrong views and let people know the Buddha's Dharma, the Buddha first taught the twelve links of dependent origination in the Hearer Dharma (the one vehicle that practices from hearing the Buddha's teaching); and for those who had already practiced, whose minds were broad and who could bear the profound Dharma, he used the Great Vehicle Dharma to teach the marks of dependent origination, that is: all dharmas neither arise nor cease, are neither one nor different, and so on, being ultimately empty, with no self-nature to be found. As is said in the Prajnaparamita (the prajna is the wisdom that sees true reality, unlike worldly cleverness; paramita means "to the other shore"): the Buddha told Subhuti: "When a Bodhisattva sits at the site of the Way and contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination, they are inexhaustible like space." After the Buddha's passing, in the latter five hundred years, entering the age of the Semblance Dharma, people's faculties became dull, and they clung deeply to all kinds of dharmas, seeking a definite and real mark in the twelve links of dependent origination, the five aggregates, the twelve sense bases and the eighteen realms (these groups of terms, together with the four conditions, self-nature and mental factors discussed later, are a set of mutually interlocking analytic frameworks in the treatise, not unrelated words; this translation uses the original terms and notes their place in the framework only when a given item is first discussed on its own, without bracketing each term further), without knowing the Buddha's original intent and sticking only to the words. Hearing in the Great Vehicle Dharma of ultimate emptiness, they did not know for what reason it was empty, and so gave rise to doubtful views: if everything is ultimately empty, how can one still distinguish sin, merit and retribution? In this way even the conventional truth and the ultimate truth (the truth established according to the world's conventions, and the final truth spoken in terms of emptiness) would be gone. Clinging greedily to this mark of emptiness, they produced all kinds of faults within ultimate emptiness. The Bodhisattva Nagarjuna composed this Madhyamaka Treatise precisely for such people.

「不生亦不滅，不常亦不斷，

"Not arising, and not ceasing; not permanent, and not annihilated,

不一亦不異，不來亦不出。

Not one, and not different; not coming from elsewhere, and not going out elsewhere.

能說是因緣，善滅諸戲論，

The Buddha could teach such dependent origination, skillfully quieting all conceptual proliferation,

我稽首禮佛，諸說中第一。」

I bow my head in homage to the Buddha; of all teachers, this is the foremost."

以此二偈讚佛，則已略說第一義。

With these two verses praising the Buddha, the first and ultimate meaning has already been roughly stated.

問曰：諸法無量，何故但以此八事破？

The questioner said: Dharmas are without number; why use only these eight things to refute them?

答曰：法雖無量，略說八事則為總破一切法。不生者，諸論師種種說生相，或謂因果一、或謂因果異、或謂因中先有果、或謂因中先無果、或謂自體生、或謂從他生、或謂共生、或謂有生、或謂無生。如是等說生相皆不然，此事後當廣說。生相決定不可得，故不生。不滅者，若無生何得有滅？以無生、無滅故，餘六事亦無。

The answerer said: Though dharmas are without number, by briefly citing these eight things one refutes all dharmas at once. What is called not arising: the various masters differ in what they say about the mark of "arising": some say cause and effect are one, some say cause and effect are different, some say the effect already exists in the cause, some say the effect does not yet exist in the cause, some say it arises from itself, some say it arises from another, some say it arises from both, some say it arises with existence, and some say it arises without existence. All such statements about the mark of arising are wrong, and will be discussed widely later. The mark of arising cannot be definitely found, so it is said to be non-arising. What is called not ceasing: if there is no arising, how can there be ceasing? Because there is no arising and no ceasing, the remaining six things also do not exist.

問曰：不生、不滅已總破一切法。何故復說六事？

The questioner said: Non-arising and non-ceasing have already refuted all dharmas at once; why say the six things again?

答曰：為成不生不滅義故。有人不受不生不滅，而信不常不斷。若深求不常不斷，即是不生不滅。何以故？法若實有則不應無，先有今無是即為斷，若先有性是則為常，是故說不常不斷，即入不生不滅義。有人雖聞四種破諸法，猶以四門成諸法。是亦不然。若一則無緣，若異則無相續，後當種種破，是故復說不一不異。有人雖聞六種破諸法，猶以來出成諸法。來者言諸法從自在天、世性、微塵等來，出者還去至本處。復次萬物無生。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見劫初穀不生。何以故？離劫初穀，今穀不可得。若離劫初穀有今穀者則應有生；而實不爾，是故不生。

The answerer said: It is to establish the meaning of non-arising and non-ceasing firmly. Some do not accept non-arising and non-ceasing, but believe in non-permanence and non-annihilation. If one searches deeply for non-permanence and non-annihilation, it is in fact non-arising and non-ceasing. Why? If a dharma truly exists, it cannot become non-existent; if it existed before and now does not, that is annihilation; if it had self-nature before, that is permanence. So by speaking of non-permanence and non-annihilation, one enters the meaning of non-arising and non-ceasing. Some, though they have heard dharmas refuted by the four, still wish to establish dharmas by the other four gates. That is also wrong. If they were one, there would be no "condition" that can serve as a condition; if they were different, there would be no continuity. Later it will be refuted in all kinds of ways, so non-one and non-different are stated again. Some, though they have heard dharmas refuted by the six, still want to establish dharmas through "coming" and "going out." Coming means that dharmas come from Mahesvara, primal nature, atoms and the like; going out means returning to the original place. Moreover, all things are without arising. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes: the grain at the beginning of the kalpa does not have a separate "arising." Why? Apart from the grain at the beginning of the kalpa, the grain now cannot be found. If, apart from the grain at the beginning of the kalpa, there were still grain now, then there should be arising; but the facts are not so, so there is no arising.

問曰：若不生則應滅。

The questioner said: If there is no arising, then there should be ceasing.

答曰：不滅。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見劫初穀不滅。若滅，今不應有穀；而實有穀，是故不滅。

The answerer said: There is no ceasing. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes: the grain at the beginning of the kalpa has not ceased. If it had ceased, there should now be no grain; but in fact there is grain, so there is no ceasing.

問曰：若不滅則應常。

The questioner said: If there is no ceasing, then it should be permanent.

答曰：不常。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見萬物不常，如穀芽時種則變壞，是故不常。

The answerer said: Not permanent. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes that things are not permanent; for example, when grain sprouts, the seed spoils, so it is not permanent.

問曰：若不常則應斷。

The questioner said: If it is not permanent, then it should be annihilated.

答曰：不斷。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見萬物不斷，如從穀有芽，是故不斷；若斷，不應相續。

The answerer said: Not annihilated. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes that things are not annihilated; for example, a sprout comes from grain, so it is not annihilated; if it were annihilated, there should be no continuity.

問曰：若爾者，萬物是一。

The questioner said: If so, then things are one.

答曰：不一。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見萬物不一，如穀不作芽、芽不作穀。若穀作芽、芽作穀者應是一；而實不爾，是故不一。

The answerer said: Not one. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes that things are not one; for example, grain does not become a sprout, and a sprout does not become grain. If grain were the sprout and the sprout were grain, then they would be one; but the facts are not so, so they are not one.

問曰：若不一則應異。

The questioner said: If they are not one, then they should be different.

答曰：不異。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見萬物不異。若異者，何故分別穀芽、穀莖、穀葉？不說樹芽、樹莖、樹葉，是故不異。

The answerer said: Not different. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes that things are not different. If they were different, why would they be called grain sprout, grain stalk and grain leaf separately, and not tree sprout, tree stalk and tree leaf? So they are not different.

問曰：若不異，應有來。

The questioner said: If they are not different, then there should be coming.

答曰：無來。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見萬物不來，如穀子中芽無所從來。若來者，芽應從餘處來，如鳥來棲樹；而實不爾，是故不來。

The answerer said: There is no coming. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes that things do not come from elsewhere; for example, the sprout in a grain seed has no place it came from. If there were coming, the sprout would have to come from another place, like a bird flying in to perch in a tree; but the facts are not so, so there is no coming.

問曰：若不來，應有出。

The questioner said: If there is no coming, then there should be going out.

答曰：不出。何以故？世間現見故。世間眼見萬物不出。若有出，應見芽從穀出，如蛇從穴出；而實不爾，是故不出。

The answerer said: Not going out. Why? Because the world's direct perception can see it. The world sees with its eyes that things do not go out from inside to outside. If there were going out, we should see the sprout come out of the grain, like a snake from a hole; but the facts are not so, so there is no going out.

問曰：汝雖釋不生不滅義，我欲聞造論者所說。

The questioner said: Although you have explained the meaning of non-arising and non-ceasing, I would still like to hear what the author of the treatise himself says.

答曰：

The answerer said:

「諸法不自生，亦不從他生，

"Dharmas do not arise from themselves, nor from others,

不共不無因，是故知無生。」

Not from both, nor without a cause, therefore know there is no arising."

不自生者，萬物無有從自體生，必待眾因。復次若從自體生，則一法有二體：一謂生、二謂生者。若離餘因從自體生者，則無因無緣。又生更有生，生則無窮。自無故，他亦無。何以故？有自故有他。若不從自生，亦不從他生，共生則有二過：自生、他生故。若無因而有萬物者，是則為常。是事不然。無因則無果，若無因有果者，佈施持戒等應墮地獄、十惡五逆應當生天，以無因故。復次：

What is called not arising from itself: no thing arises from its own self; it must await many causes. Moreover, if it arose from itself, the same dharma would have two substances: one "arising," and the other "the one who causes arising." If, apart from other causes, it arose from itself alone, that would be without cause and without condition. And once arisen, it would arise again, and arising would be endless. Where there is none on one's own side, there is also none on the other's side. Why? Because "self" exists, there is "other." If it does not arise from itself, nor arise from another, arising from both has two faults: it falls into arising from itself and also into arising from another. If things existed without a cause, that would be permanence. This is wrong. Without a cause there is no effect; if there were effects without causes, then those who give, keep precepts and do other good would fall into hell, and those who commit the ten evils and five heinous crimes would be born in heaven, because there would be no cause to decide. Furthermore:

「如諸法自性，不在於緣中，

"The self-nature of dharmas is not within the many conditions,

以無自性故，他性亦復無。」

Because there is no self-nature, there is no other-nature either."

諸法自性不在眾緣中，但眾緣和合故得名字。自性即是自體，眾緣中無自性。自性無故不自生，自性無故他性亦無。何以故？因自性有他性，他性於他亦是自性。若破自性即破他性，是故不應從他性生。若破自性、他性，即破共義。無因則有大過，有因尚可破，何況無因！於四句中生不可得，是故不生。

The self-nature of dharmas is not within the many conditions; only because the many conditions come together is a name obtained. Self-nature is own-substance, and there is no self-nature within the many conditions. Self-nature does not exist, so there is no arising from itself; self-nature does not exist, so other-nature does not exist either. Why? Other-nature depends on self-nature; other-nature, on the other side, is in fact self-nature. If self-nature is refuted, other-nature is also refuted, so there should be no arising from another. If self-nature and other-nature are refuted, the meaning of arising from both is also refuted. Having no cause is a great fault: even having a cause can be refuted, how much more having none! Seeking "arising" within these four alternatives cannot find it, so there is no arising.

問曰：阿毘曇人言「諸法從四緣生」，云何言不生？何謂四緣？

The questioner said: The Abhidharma people (those who analyze and arrange the Buddha's teaching into systematic treatises) say "dharmas arise from the four conditions"; how can you say there is no arising? What are the four conditions?

「因緣次第緣，緣緣增上緣，

"The causal condition, the immediately preceding condition, the object condition, the dominant condition,

四緣生諸法，更無第五緣。」

The four conditions produce dharmas, and there is no fifth condition."

一切所有緣，皆攝在四緣，以是四緣萬物得生。因緣名一切有為法；次第緣除過去現在阿羅漢最後心心數法，餘過去現在心心數法；緣緣、增上緣一切法。

All conditions that exist are included in these four conditions, and it is by these four conditions that things arise. The causal condition refers to all conditioned dharmas; the immediately preceding condition, excepting the last mind and mental factors of past and present arhats (saints who have exhausted afflictions and no longer take birth), includes all other past and present minds and mental factors; the object condition and the dominant condition extend to all dharmas.

答曰：

The answerer said:

「果為從緣生，為從非緣生？

"Is the effect produced from a condition, or from a non-condition?

是緣為有果，是緣為無果？」

Does this condition already have the effect, or not have the effect?"

若謂有果，是果為從緣生、為從非緣生？若謂有緣，是緣為有果、為無果？二俱不然。何以故？

If you say the effect exists, does this effect arise from a condition or from a non-condition? If you say there is a condition, does this condition already have the effect or not have the effect? Neither is right. Why?

「因是法生果，是法名為緣；

"Because this dharma produces an effect, this dharma is called a condition;

若是果未生，何不名非緣？」

If this effect has not yet arisen, why is it not called a non-condition?"

諸緣無決定。何以故？若果未生，是時不名為緣；但眼見從緣生果，故名之為緣。緣成由於果，以果後、緣先故。若未有果，何得名為緣？如瓶以水土和合故有瓶生，見瓶故知水土等是瓶緣。若瓶未生時，何以不名水土等為非緣？是故果不從緣生。緣尚不生，何況非緣。復次：

The various conditions have no definiteness. Why? If the effect has not yet arisen, at that time it is not called a condition; only because the eyes see an effect arise from a condition is it called a condition. The condition is established by reliance on the effect; the effect comes later and the condition comes first. If there is not yet an effect, on what basis is it called a condition? For example, a pot: only when water and earth come together does a pot arise, and seeing the pot, one knows that water, earth and so on are the pot's conditions. If the pot has not yet arisen, why are water and earth not called non-conditions? So the effect does not arise from a condition. If a condition cannot produce, how much less a non-condition. Furthermore:

「果先於緣中，有無俱不可。

"If the effect were beforehand in the condition, saying it exists or does not exist both fail.

先無為誰緣，先有何用緣。」

If it did not exist beforehand, whose condition would it be? If it already existed beforehand, what would the condition be for?"

緣中先非有果、非無果。若先有果，不名為緣，果先有故。若先無果，亦不名為緣，不生餘物故。

Within the condition, beforehand, there is neither an effect nor no effect. If the effect existed beforehand, it would not be called a condition, because the effect already existed first. If the effect did not exist beforehand, it would also not be called a condition, because it does not produce anything else.

問曰：已總破一切因緣，今欲聞一一破諸緣。

The questioner said: You have already refuted all conditions at once; now I would like to hear each of the conditions refuted one by one.

答曰：

The answerer said:

「若果非有生，亦復非無生，

"If an effect does not arise from "existence," nor from "non-existence,"

亦非有無生，何得言有緣？」

Nor from "both existence and non-existence," how can one speak of a condition?"