Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
諸法從本已來無生，畢竟寂滅相，是故品末說是偈。若人說我相，如犢子部眾說：不得言色即是我、不得言離色是我，我在第五不可說藏中。如薩婆多部眾說：諸法各各相，是善、是不善、是無記。是有漏、無漏、有為、無為等別異。如是等人不得諸法寂滅相，以佛語作種種戲論。
All dharmas are originally unborn, which is the characteristic of ultimate stillness, and so this verse is spoken at the end of the chapter. If someone speaks of the characteristic of a self, as the Vatsiputriya school says: one cannot say form is the self, one cannot say the self is apart from form, and the self lies in the fifth store of the "inexpressible." Or as the Sarvastivada school says: all dharmas each have their own characteristics, this is good, this is unwholesome, this is neutral, this is with outflows, without outflows, conditioned, unconditioned, and so on, each with its differences. Such people do not obtain the characteristic of stillness of all dharmas, and use the Buddha's words to make various conceptual proliferations.
中論觀本際品第十一(八偈)
Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter 11: Examination of the Original Limit (eight verses)
問曰：《無本際經》說：眾生往來生死，本際不可得。是中說有眾生、有生死。以何因緣故而作是說？
The questioner says: The Sutra of No Original Limit says: beings go back and forth through birth and death, and the original limit cannot be found. Here you speak of beings and of birth and death. On what causes and conditions do you say this?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「大聖之所說，本際不可得，
"What the Great Sage has said is that the original limit cannot be found,
生死無有始，亦復無有終。」
and birth and death have no beginning and no end."
聖人有三種：一者外道五神通；二者阿羅漢辟支佛；三者得神通大菩薩。佛於三種中最上，故言大聖。佛所言說，無不是實說。生死無始。何以故？生死初後不可得，是故言無始。汝謂若無初後，應有中者，是亦不然。何以故？
There are three kinds of sages: first, the five spiritual powers of outsiders; second, arhats and pratyekabuddhas; third, great Bodhisattvas who have attained spiritual powers. The Buddha is the highest among these three, and so is called the Great Sage. What the Buddha says is all said as things really are. Birth and death have no beginning. Why? Neither the beginning nor the end of birth and death can be found, so it is said to be beginningless. You say that if there is no beginning and no end, there should be a middle, but this is not right either. Why?
「若無有始終，中當云何有？
"If there is no beginning and no end, how can there be a middle?
是故於此中，先後共亦無。」
So in this, before, after and simultaneity are all absent as well."
因中、後故有初，因初、中故有後。若無初無後，云何有中？生死中無初、中、後，是故說先後共不可得。何以故？
The beginning exists depending on the middle and the end, and the end exists depending on the beginning and the middle. If there is no beginning and no end, how can there be a middle? In birth and death there is no beginning, middle or end, so it is said that before, after and simultaneity cannot be found. Why?
「若使先有生，後有老死者；
"If birth came first and old age and death later;
不老死有生，不生有老死。
then there would be birth without old age and death, and old age and death without birth.
若先有老死，而後有生者；
If old age and death came first and birth afterward;
是則為無因，不生有老死。」
then it would be without cause, with old age and death without birth."
生死眾生，若先生、漸有老而後有死者，則生無老死。法應生有老死、老死有生。又不老死而生，是亦不然；又不因生有老死。若先老死後生，老死則無因，生在後故；又不生，何有老死？若謂生老死先後不可，謂一時成者，是亦有過。何以故？
For beings in birth and death, if one is born first, gradually grows old, and then dies, then birth has no old age and death. By reason it would have to be that birth has old age and death and old age and death have birth. Also, being born without aging and dying is not right; and having old age and death not depending on birth is not right either. If old age and death came first and birth afterward, then old age and death would be without cause, because birth comes later; and without birth, where would old age and death come from? If one says birth and old age and death cannot be before and after but are established at the same moment, this too has faults. Why?
「生及於老死，不得一時共；
"Birth and old age and death cannot be together at the same moment;
生時則有死，是二俱無因。」
if at the moment of birth there is death, then the two both have no cause."
若生老死一時，則不然。何以故？生時即有死故。法應生時有、死時無，若生時有死，是事不然。若一時生，則無有相因。如牛角一時出則不相因。是故：
If birth and old age and death were at the same moment, this is not right. Why? At the time of birth there would be death. By reason, there should be being at the time of birth and non-being at the time of death; if at the time of birth there is death, this is not right. If they arise at the same moment, there is no mutual dependence. Like the two horns of an ox growing out at the same moment, they do not depend on each other. Therefore:
「若使初後共，是皆不然者，
"If beginning, end and simultaneity are all not right,
何故而戲論，謂有生老死？」
why still engage in conceptual proliferation, saying that there are birth, old age and death?"
思惟生老死三皆有過故，即無生，畢竟空。汝今何故貪著戲論生老死，謂有決定相？復次：
Reflecting that birth, old age and death all have faults is also seeing them as unborn and ultimately empty. Why do you now cling to conceptual proliferation about birth, old age and death, saying that they have determinate characteristics? Furthermore:
「諸所有因果，相及可相法，
"All cause and effect, characteristics and what is characterized,
受及受者等，所有一切法，
grasping and the one who grasps, and all dharmas whatsoever,
非但於生死，本際不可得，
not only birth and death, have an original limit that cannot be found,
如是一切法，本際皆亦無。」
and so for all dharmas, the original limit does not exist either."
一切法者，所謂因果相可相、受及受者等，皆無本際，非但生死無本際。以略開示故，說生死無本際。
What is called all dharmas means cause and effect, characteristics and what is characterized, grasping and the one who grasps, and so on, none of which has an original limit, not only birth and death. It is because it is a general teaching that birth and death are said to have no original limit.
中論觀苦品第十二(十偈)
Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter 12: Examination of Suffering (ten verses)
有人說曰：
Someone says:
「自作及他作，共作無因作，
"Self-made, made by another, made by both, or made without cause,
如是說諸苦，於果則不然。」
to speak of suffering in these ways, all are wrong when applied to the result."
有人言：苦惱自作；或言他作；或言亦自作亦他作；或言無因作，於果皆不然。於果皆不然者，眾生以眾緣致苦，厭苦欲求滅。不知苦惱實因緣有四種謬，是故說於果皆不然。何以故？
Someone says: suffering is made by oneself; or says it is made by another; or says it is made by both oneself and another; or says it is made without cause; all are wrong when applied to the result. What is meant by all being wrong when applied to the result is this: beings, because of many conditions, bring on suffering, and, disliking suffering and wanting to end it, do not know the true causes and conditions of suffering, and give rise to four mistaken views, so it is said that all are wrong when applied to the result. Why?
「苦若自作者，則不從緣生，
"If suffering were made by oneself, it would not arise from conditions,
因有此陰故，而有彼陰生。」
for it is because of this aggregate that that aggregate arises."
若苦自作，則不從眾緣生，自名從自性生。是事不然。何以故？因前五陰有後五陰生，是故苦不得自作。
If suffering were made by oneself, it would not arise from many conditions; "self" means arising from self-nature. This is not right. Why? The later five aggregates arise depending on the earlier five aggregates, so suffering cannot be made by oneself.
問曰：若言此五陰作彼五陰者，則是他作。
The questioner says: If this set of five aggregates makes that set of five aggregates, then it is made by another.
答曰：是事不然。何以故？
The answerer says: This is not right. Why?
「若謂此五陰，異彼五陰者，
"If it is said that this set of five aggregates is different from that set of five aggregates,
如是則應言，從他而作苦。」
then it would be right to say that suffering is made from another."
若此五陰與彼五陰異，彼五陰與此五陰異者應從他作。如縷與布異者，應離縷有布。若離縷無布者，則布不異縷。如是彼五陰異此五陰者，則應離此五陰有彼五陰。若離此五陰無彼五陰者，則此五陰不異彼五陰，是故不應言苦從他作。
If this set of five aggregates were different from that set, and that set different from this set, then it would be made from another. Like thread and cloth: if they were different, there should be cloth apart from the thread. If there is no cloth apart from the thread, then cloth is not different from thread. Likewise, if that set of five aggregates were different from this set, there should be that set apart from this set. If there is no that set apart from this set, then this set is not different from that set, so one should not say that suffering is made from another.
問曰：自作者，是人人自作苦、自受苦。
The questioner says: What is called self-made is that a person makes suffering himself and experiences suffering himself.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若人自作苦，離苦何有人？
"If a person made suffering himself, where would a person be apart from suffering?
而謂於彼人，而能自作苦。」
Yet it is said that in that person he can make suffering himself."
若謂人自作苦者，離五陰苦，何處別有人而能自作苦？應說是人，而不可說，是故苦非人自作。若謂人不自作苦，他人作苦與此人者，是亦不然。何以故？
If one says a person makes suffering himself, apart from this suffering of the five aggregates, where is there another person who can make suffering himself? One should be able to point out this person but cannot, so suffering is not made by a person himself. If one says that a person does not make suffering himself, but another person makes suffering and gives it to this person, this is not right either. Why?
「若苦他人作，而與此人者；
"If suffering is made by another person and then given to this person;
若當離於苦，何有此人受？」
apart from suffering, where is this person who would receive it?"
若他人作苦與此人者，離五陰無有此人受。復次：
If another person makes suffering and gives it to this person, apart from the five aggregates there is no such person to receive it. Furthermore:
「苦若彼人作，持與此人者；
"If suffering is made by that person and handed to this person;
離苦何有人，而能授於此？」
apart from suffering, where is the person who could give it to this side?"
若謂彼人作苦授與此人者，離五陰苦，何有彼人作苦持與此人？若有者，應說其相。復次：
If one says that person makes suffering and hands it to this person, apart from this suffering of the five aggregates, where is that person who makes suffering and hands it to this person? If there is one, his characteristics should be stated. Furthermore:
「自作若不成，云何彼作苦？
"If self-making is still not established, how can one speak of making suffering by another?
若彼人作苦，即亦名自作。」
If that person makes suffering, then in him it is also called self-made."
種種因緣彼自作苦不成，而言他作苦。是亦不然。何以故？此彼相待故。若彼作苦，於彼亦名自作苦。自作苦先已破，汝受自作苦不成故，他作亦不成。復次：
Through various causes and conditions, that other side's making suffering itself is not established, yet you say another makes suffering. This is not right either. Why? This and that depend on each other. If that side makes suffering, on that side it is also called making suffering by oneself. Self-made suffering has been refuted before; since you admit that self-made suffering is not established, other-made is not established either. Furthermore:
「苦不名自作，法不自作法，
"Suffering is not called self-made, a dharma does not make a dharma by itself,
彼無有自體，何有彼作苦？」
and that side has no substance of its own, so where is suffering made by another?"
自作苦不然。何以故？如刀不能自割。如是法不能自作法，是故不能自作。他作亦不然。何以故？離苦無彼自性。若離苦有彼自性者，應言彼作苦，彼亦即是苦，云何苦自作苦？
Suffering made by oneself is not right. Why? As a knife cannot cut itself. So a dharma cannot make a dharma by itself, so it cannot be made by itself. Other-made is also not right. Why? Apart from suffering, that side has no self-nature. If apart from suffering there were the self-nature of that side, then it would be right to say that side makes suffering; but that side is itself suffering, so how can suffering make suffering by itself?
問曰：若自作、他作不然，應有共作。
The questioner says: If self-made and other-made are both not right, there should be made by both.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若此彼苦成，應有共作苦；
"If the suffering of this and that were both established, there could be making of suffering by both;
此彼尚無作，何況無因作！」
since this and that do not even make it, how much less without cause!"