Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
答曰：是事不然。何以故？燃、可燃俱不成故。燃、可燃若以一法成，若以二法成，二俱不成。
The answerer says: This is not right. Why? Burning and fuel are both not established. Whether burning and fuel are established by one dharma or by two dharmas, neither is established.
問曰：且置一異法。若言無燃、可燃，今云何以一異相破？如兔角龜毛，無故不可破。世間眼見實有事，而後可思惟。如有金，然後可燒可鍛。若無燃、可燃，不應以一異法思惟。若汝許有一異法，當知有燃、可燃。若許有者，則為已有。
The questioner says: Set aside oneness and difference for now. If you say there is no burning and no fuel, then on what basis do you refute them using the marks of oneness and difference? Like a hare's horn or a tortoise's hair, they cannot be refuted because they do not exist. In the world one sees real things with one's eyes and only then can reflect on them. For example, only because there is gold can it be burned and forged. If there were no burning and no fuel, one should not reflect using oneness and difference. If you admit there is oneness and difference, you should know there is burning and fuel. If you admit they exist, then they already exist.
答曰：隨世俗法言說，不應有過。燃、可燃若說一若說異，不名為受。若離世俗言說，則無所論。若不說燃、可燃，云何能有所破？若無所說，則義不可明。如有論者欲破有無，必應言有無，不以稱有無故而受有無。是以隨世間言說故無咎。若口有言便是受者，汝言破即為自破，燃、可燃亦如是。雖有言說亦復不受，是故以一異法思惟燃、可燃，二俱不成。何以故？
The answerer says: To speak according to conventional dharmas should not be at fault. Whether one speaks of burning and fuel as one or as different, neither is called “grasping.” If one leaves conventional speech, there is nothing to discuss. If one does not speak of burning and fuel, how can anything be refuted? If nothing is said, the meaning cannot become clear. Just as a debater who wishes to refute being and non-being must speak of being and non-being, and does not accept being and non-being merely because the mouth names them. Therefore following worldly speech has no fault. If to say it with the mouth were to accept it, then your saying “refute” would refute yourself; burning and fuel are the same. Although there is speech, there is no acceptance. So in reflecting on burning and fuel with oneness and difference, both are not established. Why?
「若燃是可燃，作作者則一；
“If burning is the same as fuel, then act and agent would be one;
若燃異可燃，離可燃有燃。」
if burning is different from fuel, then burning would exist apart from fuel.”
燃是火、可燃是薪。作者是人、作是業。若燃、可燃一，則作、作者亦應一。若作、作者一，則陶師與瓶一。作者是陶師、作是瓶，陶師非瓶、瓶非陶師，云何為一？是以作、作者不一；故燃、可燃亦不一。若謂一不可則應異。是亦不然。何以故？若燃與可燃異，應離可燃別有燃。分別是可燃、是燃，處處離可燃應有燃。而實不爾，是故異亦不可。復次：
Burning is fire, and fuel is firewood. The agent is the person, and the act is the deed. If burning and fuel are one, act and agent should also be one. If act and agent are one, the potter and the pot would be one. The agent is the potter and the act is the pot; the potter is not the pot and the pot is not the potter, so how could they be one? Thus act and agent are not one; so burning and fuel are also not one. If one will not do, then they should be different. This is also wrong. Why? If burning and fuel are different, burning should exist apart from fuel. Distinguishing this as fuel and this as burning, in all places there should be burning apart from fuel. But in fact it is not so, so being different also does not work. Furthermore:
「如是常應燃，不因可燃生；
“Then there would be burning constantly, not arising from fuel;
則無燃火功，亦名無作火。」
and there would also be no effort of kindling, and it would be called a fire without a maker.”
若燃、可燃異，則燃不待可燃而常燃。若常燃者則自住其體、不待因緣，人功則空。人功者，將護火令燃。是功現有，是故知火不異可燃。
If fire and fuel were different, fire would burn constantly without depending on fuel. If it burned constantly, it would stand on its own substance without depending on causes and conditions, and human effort would be in vain. What is called human effort is tending the fire to make it burn. Since this effort is evidently present, we know that fire is not different from fuel.
復次若燃異可燃，燃即無作。離可燃，火何所然？若爾者，火則無作。無作火，無有是事。
Furthermore, if fire were different from fuel, fire would have no action. Apart from fuel, what would the fire burn? If so, fire would have no action. A fire with no action is something that does not exist.
問曰：云何火不從因緣生，人功亦空？
The questioner says: Why do you say that fire does not arise from causes and conditions, and that human effort is also in vain?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「燃不待可燃，則不從緣生；
"If burning does not depend on fuel, it does not arise from conditions;
火若常燃者，人功則應空。」
if fire burned constantly, human effort would be in vain."
燃、可燃若異，則不待可燃有燃。若不待可燃有然，則無相因法，是故不從因緣生。復次若燃異可燃，則應常燃。若常燃者，應離可燃別見有燃，更不須人功。何以故？
If burning and fuel were different, there would be burning without depending on fuel. If there were burning without depending on fuel, there would be no dharmas that depend on each other, so it would not arise from causes and conditions. Furthermore, if burning were different from fuel, it would burn constantly. If it burned constantly, one would see burning apart from fuel, and there would be no need for human effort. Why?
「若汝謂燃時，名為可燃者；
"If you say that what is burning at the moment of burning is called fuel,
爾時但有薪，何物燃可燃？」
then at that time there is only firewood; what is burning this fuel?"
若謂先有薪，燒時名可燃者，是事不爾。若離燃別有可燃者，云何言燃時名可燃？復次：
If you say there was firewood beforehand and it is called fuel when burning, this is not right. If fuel exists apart from burning, how can it be said that it is called fuel only when burning? Furthermore:
「若異則不至，不至則不燒，
"If they are different they cannot reach each other, and if they do not reach, there is no burning;
不燒則不滅，不滅則常住。」
with no burning there is no extinction, and with no extinction it would abide forever."
若燃異可燃，則燃不應至可燃。何以故？不相待成故。若燃不相待成，則自住其體，何用可燃？是故不至。若不至，則不燃可燃。何以故？無有不至而能燒故。若不燒則無滅，應常住自相。是事不爾。
If burning were different from fuel, burning could not reach fuel. Why? Because it would be established without depending on the other. If burning is established without dependence, it stands on its own substance, so what is fuel for? So it cannot reach. If it cannot reach, it does not burn the fuel. Why? There is nothing that burns without reaching. If it does not burn, it would never go out, and would abide forever in its own form. This is not so.
問曰：
The questioner says:
「燃與可燃異，而能至可燃；
"Burning and fuel are different, yet burning can reach fuel;
如此至彼人，彼人至此人。」
like this person reaching that person and that person reaching this person."
燃與可燃異，而能至可燃；如男至於女，如女至於男。
Burning and fuel are different, yet burning can reach fuel, as a man goes to a woman and a woman comes to a man.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若謂燃可燃，二俱相離者，
"If burning and fuel were both apart from each other,
如是燃則能，至於彼可燃。」
then burning could reach that fuel."
若離燃有可燃、若離可燃有燃，各自成者，如是則應燃至可燃。而實不爾。何以故？離燃無可燃、離可燃無燃故。今離男有女、離女有男，是故汝喻非也。喻不成故，燃不至可燃。
If there were fuel apart from burning and burning apart from fuel, each established by itself, then it would be right for burning to reach fuel. But the fact is not so. Why? Apart from burning there is no fuel, and apart from fuel there is no burning. But now there is a woman apart from a man and a man apart from a woman, so your analogy is wrong. If the analogy does not hold, burning cannot reach fuel.
問曰：燃、可燃相待而有，因可燃有燃、因燃有可燃，二法相待成。
The questioner says: Burning and fuel exist in mutual dependence: because of fuel there is burning, and because of burning there is fuel; the two dharmas depend on each other and are established.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若因可燃燃，因燃有可燃，
"If because of fuel there is burning, and because of burning there is fuel,
先定有何法，而有燃可燃？」
which of the two dharmas is first established, such that there is burning and fuel?"
若因可燃而燃成，亦應因燃可燃成。是中若先定有可燃，則因可燃而燃成。若先定有燃，則因燃可燃成。今若因可燃而燃成者，則先有可燃而後有燃，不應待燃而有可燃。何以故？可燃在先、燃在後故。若燃不燃可燃，是則可燃不成；又可燃不在餘處，離於燃故。若可燃不成，燃亦不成。若先燃後有可燃，燃亦有如是過。是故燃、可燃二俱不成。復次：
If burning is established because of fuel, then fuel should also be established because of burning. Here, if fuel were already definitely present beforehand, only then could one speak of burning being established because of fuel. If burning were already definitely present beforehand, only then could one speak of fuel being established because of burning. Now if burning is established because of fuel, then fuel comes first and burning after, and fuel should not need to wait for burning to exist. Why? Fuel is first and burning is later. If burning does not burn fuel, fuel is not established; and fuel is not anywhere else, because it is apart from burning. If fuel is not established, burning is not established either. If burning comes first and fuel after, burning has the same fault. So burning and fuel are both not established. Furthermore:
「若因可燃燃，則燃成復成；
"If because of fuel there is burning, burning being established would be established again;
是為可燃中，則為無有燃。」
this would mean there is no burning within the fuel."
若欲因可燃而成燃，則燃成已復成。何以故？燃自住於燃中。若燃不自住其體，從可燃成者，無有是事。是故有是燃從可燃成，今則燃成復成，有如是過。復有可燃無燃過。何以故？可燃離燃自住其體故。是故燃可燃相因待，無有是事。復次：
If one wants burning to be established on account of fuel, then burning is already established and is established again. Why? Burning abides within burning. If burning does not abide on its own substance but is established from fuel, there is no such thing. So there is this burning established from fuel, and now burning is established and established again, which is this kind of fault. There is also the fault that the fuel has no burning. Why? Fuel, apart from burning, abides on its own substance. So to say that burning and fuel depend on each other is not so. Furthermore:
「若法因待成，是法還成待；
"If a dharma is established by depending on something, this dharma in turn establishes that on which it depends;
今則無因待，亦無所成法。」
now there is neither dependence nor any dharma that is established."
若法因待成，是法還成本因待。如是決定則無二事。如因可燃而成燃，還因於燃而成可燃，是則二俱無定。無定故，不可得。何以故？
If a dharma is established by depending on something, this dharma in turn establishes what it originally depended on. Settled this way, both matters turn out not to exist. Like burning being established on account of fuel and in turn fuel being established on account of burning, both of these are not determined. Being undetermined, they cannot be obtained. Why?
「若法有待成，未成云何待？
"If a dharma depends on something to be established, how does it depend before it is established?
若成已有待，成已何用待？」
If it depends only after it is established, what is the use of depending once it is established?"
若法因待成，是法先未成，未成則無，無則云何有因待？若是法先已成，已成何用因待？是二俱不相因待，是故汝先說燃，可燃相因待成，無有是事。是故：
If a dharma is established by depending on something, this dharma was not yet established beforehand; what is not yet established is nonexistent, and how can nonexistence depend on anything? If this dharma was already established beforehand, what is the use of depending once it is established? In neither case do they depend on each other. So what you said earlier, that burning and fuel are established in mutual dependence, is not so. Therefore:
「因可燃無燃，不因亦無燃；
"Depending on fuel there is no burning, and not depending on fuel there is no burning either;
因燃無可燃，不因無可燃。」
depending on burning there is no fuel, and not depending on burning there is no fuel either."
今因待可燃，燃不成；不因待可燃，燃亦不成。可燃亦如是。因燃、不因燃，二俱不成，是過先已說。復次：
Now, if burning depends on fuel, it is not established; if it does not depend on fuel, burning is not established either. Fuel is the same. Whether depending on burning or not, both are not established, and these faults have been explained earlier. Furthermore:
「燃不餘處來，燃處亦無燃，
"Burning does not come from elsewhere, and there is no burning in the place of burning,
可燃亦如是，餘如去來說。」
and fuel is the same; the rest is as said in the chapter on going and coming."
燃不於餘方來入可燃，可燃中亦無燃，析薪求燃不可得故。可燃亦如是，不從餘處來入燃中，燃中亦無可燃。如燃已不燃，未燃不燃、燃時不燃，是義如〈去來〉中說。是故：
Burning does not come from another place and enter fuel, and there is no burning within fuel, because one splits the firewood and cannot find burning. Fuel is the same: it does not come from elsewhere and enter burning, and there is no fuel within burning. As for what has been burned not burning, what has not yet been burned not burning, and what is being burned not burning either, this principle is as said in the chapter on going and coming. Therefore:
「可燃即非燃，離可燃無燃；
"Fuel is not burning, and apart from fuel there is no burning;
燃無有可燃，燃中無可燃，
burning does not possess fuel, and there is no fuel within burning,
可燃中無燃。」
and there is no burning within fuel."
可燃即非燃。何以故？先已說作、作者一過故。離可燃無燃，有常燃等過故。燃無有可燃、燃中無可燃、可燃中無燃，以有異過故，三皆不成。
Fuel is not burning. Why? The fault that action and agent would be one has been explained before. Apart from fuel there is no burning, because of the faults of constant burning and so forth. Burning does not possess fuel, there is no fuel within burning and no burning within fuel, because of the fault of "they are different," and all three are not established.
問曰：何故說燃、可燃？
The questioner says: Why speak of burning and fuel?
答曰：如因可燃有燃，如是因受有受者。受名五陰，受者名人。燃可燃不成故，受受者亦不成。何以故？
The answerer says: As with burning that exists because of fuel, so the one who grasps exists because of grasping. Grasping means the five aggregates; the one who grasps means the person. If burning and fuel are not established, grasping and the one who grasps are not established either. Why?
「以燃可燃法，說受受者法，
"The dharma of burning and fuel is used to explain the dharma of grasping and the one who grasps,
及以說瓶衣，一切等諸法。」
and also to explain pots, clothes, and all other dharmas."
如可燃非燃，如是受非受者，作作者一過故。又離受無受者，異不可得故。以異過故，三皆不成。如受受者，外瓶衣等一切法皆同上說，無生畢竟空。是故：
Just as fuel is not burning, so grasping is not the one who grasps, because of the fault that action and agent would be one. Moreover, apart from grasping there is no one who grasps, because "they are different" cannot be obtained. Because "they are different" has faults, all three are not established. Just as with grasping and the one who grasps, so external pots, clothes and all dharmas are the same as stated above: unborn and ultimately empty. Therefore:
「若人說有我，諸法各異相；
"If someone says there is a self, and that all dharmas each have their own characteristics,
當知如是人，不得佛法味。」
one should know that such a person does not obtain the taste of the Buddha's Dharma."