Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
性若有異相，是事終不然。」
if nature has a characteristic of change, this is in the end not right."
若諸法決定有性，終不應變異。何以故？若定有自性，不應有異相，如上真金喻。今現見諸法有異相故，當知無有定相。復次：
If dharmas definitely had a nature, they should in the end not change. Why? If they definitely had self-nature, there should not be different marks, as in the earlier analogy of true gold. Now, seeing before our eyes that dharmas have different marks, we should know that they have no fixed mark. Furthermore:
「若法實有性，云何而可異？
"If a dharma truly has a nature, how can it still differ?
若法實無性，云何而可異？」
If a dharma truly has no nature, how can it still differ?"
若法定有性，云何可變異？若無性，則無自體，云何可變異？復次：
If a dharma definitely has a nature, how can it change? If it has no nature, then it has no substance, so how can it change? Furthermore:
「定有則著常，定無則著斷；
"Definitely existing falls into permanence, definitely not existing falls into annihilation;
是故有智者，不應著有無。」
therefore the wise should not cling to existence or non-existence."
若法定有有相，則終無無相，是即為常。何以故？如說三世者，未來中有法相，是法來至現在，轉入過去，不捨本相，是則為常。又說因中先有果，是亦為常。若說定有無，是無必先有今無，是則為斷滅，斷滅名無相續因。由是二見，即遠離佛法。
If a dharma definitely has the mark of "existence," and in the end has no mark of "non-existence," this is permanence. Why? Like those who speak of the three times: in the future there is the mark of the dharma; when this dharma comes to the present and turns into the past, it does not abandon its original mark, and this is permanence. Again, to say that the effect already exists beforehand in the cause is also permanence. If one says that non-existence definitely exists, this non-existence must have been existence before and now is gone, and this is annihilation; annihilation is called the lack of a continuing cause. Because of these two views, one is far from the Buddha's teaching.
問曰：何故因有生常見、因無生斷見？
The questioner said: Why does existence give rise to the view of permanence and non-existence give rise to the view of annihilation?
答曰：
The answerer said:
「若法有定性，非無則是常；
"If a dharma has a definite nature and is not non-existent, that is permanence;
先有而今無，是則為斷滅。」
if it existed before and now does not exist, that is annihilation."
若法性定有，則是有相非無相，終不應無。若無則非有，即為無法，先已說過故，如是則墮常見。若法先有，敗壞而無者，是名斷滅。何以故？有不應無故，汝謂有無各有定相故。若有斷常見者，則無罪福等，破世間事，是故應捨。
If the nature of a dharma definitely exists, then it is the mark of existence and not the mark of non-existence, and in the end it should not be non-existent. If it were non-existent it would not be existent, and so would be a non-existent dharma, as already said; in this way one falls into the view of permanence. If a dharma existed before and, having decayed, becomes non-existent, this is called annihilation. Why? Existence should not turn into non-existence, yet you consider existence and non-existence each to have a fixed mark. If there are views of annihilation and permanence, then there is no sin or merit and the like, and the affairs of the world are destroyed, so they should be abandoned.
中論觀縛解品第十六(十偈)
Madhyamaka-shastra, Chapter Sixteen: Examination of Bondage and Liberation (ten verses)
問曰：生死非都無根本，於中應有眾生往來、若諸行往來。汝以何因緣故，說眾生及諸行盡空，無有往來？
The questioner said: Birth and death are not entirely without foundation; within them there should be beings going and coming, or there should be conditioned phenomena going and coming. By what cause and condition do you say that beings and conditioned phenomena are all empty and there is no going or coming?
答曰：
The answerer said:
「諸行往來者，常不應往來，
"Conditioned phenomena going and coming, if permanent should not go and come,
無常亦不應，眾生亦復然。」
and if impermanent also should not go and come, and beings are likewise."
諸行往來六道生死中者，為常相往來？為無常相往來？二俱不然。若常相往來者，則無生死相續，以決定故、自性住故。若以無常往來者，亦無往來生死相續，以不決定故、無自性故。若眾生往來者，亦有如是過。復次：
Do conditioned phenomena go and come in the birth and death of the six paths bearing the mark of permanence, or bearing the mark of impermanence? Neither is right. If they go and come bearing the mark of permanence, there would be no continuity of birth and death, because they would already be fixed and dwelling in self-nature. If they go and come bearing impermanence, there would also be no continuity of going and coming in birth and death, because they would not be fixed and would have no self-nature. If beings go and come, this kind of fault applies as well. Furthermore:
「若眾生往來，陰界諸入中，
"If a being goes and comes, within the aggregates, realms, and sense bases,
五種求盡無，誰有往來者？」
the five kinds of searching find none at all; who is the one who goes and comes?"
生死陰界入即是一義。若眾生於此陰界入中往來者，是眾生於〈燃可燃品〉中五種求不可得，誰於陰界入中而有往來者？復次：
Birth and death, the aggregates, realms, and sense bases are in fact one meaning. If a being goes and comes within these aggregates, realms, and sense bases, this being cannot be found by the five kinds of searching in the chapter on Fire and Fuel; who then is going and coming within the aggregates, realms, and sense bases? Furthermore:
「若從身至身，往來即無身；
"If one goes from one body to another body, the one going and coming has no body;
若其無有身，則無有往來。」
if there is no body at all, there is no going and coming."
若眾生往來，為有身往來？為無身往來？二俱不然。何以故？若有身往來，從一身至一身，如是則往來者無身。又若先已有身，不應復從身至身。若先無身則無有，若無有云何有生死往來？
If a being goes and comes, does it go and come with a body or without a body? Neither is right. Why? If it goes and comes with a body, going from one body to another body, then the one going and coming has no body. Moreover, if there already was a body before, it should not again go from body to body. If there was no body before, then there is no "existence"; if there is no "existence," how can there be going and coming in birth and death?
問曰：經說有涅槃滅一切苦，是滅應諸行滅、若眾生滅。
The questioner said: The sutras say there is nirvana, extinguishing all suffering; this extinction should be the extinction of conditioned phenomena, or the extinction of beings.
答曰：二俱不滅。何以故？
The answerer said: Neither is extinguished. Why?
「諸行若滅者，是事終不然；
"If conditioned phenomena are extinguished, this is in the end not right;
眾生若滅者，是事亦不然。」
if beings are extinguished, this too is not right."
汝說若諸行滅、若眾生滅，是事先已答，諸行無有性，眾生亦種種推求生死往來不可得，是故諸行不滅，眾生亦不滅。
You say either conditioned phenomena are extinguished or beings are extinguished; this matter has already been answered: conditioned phenomena have no nature, and beings too, by various searches, cannot be found in birth and death or in going and coming, so conditioned phenomena are not extinguished and beings are not extinguished either.
問曰：若爾者則無縛無解，根本不可得故。
The questioner said: If so, there is no bondage and no liberation, because at root they cannot be found.
答曰：
The answerer said:
「諸行生滅相，不縛亦不解；
"Conditioned phenomena have the mark of arising and ceasing, and are neither bound nor liberated;
眾生如先說，不縛亦不解。」
beings, as spoken of earlier, are neither bound nor liberated."
汝謂諸行及眾生有縛解者，是事不然。諸行念念生滅故，不應有縛解。眾生先說五種推求不可得，云何有縛解？復次：
You consider that conditioned phenomena and beings have bondage and liberation, but this is not right. Conditioned phenomena arise and cease moment by moment and should not have bondage or liberation. Beings, as said earlier, cannot be found by the five kinds of searching; how could they have bondage or liberation? Furthermore:
「若身名為縛，有身則不縛，
"If the body is called bondage, then one who has a body is not bound,
無身亦不縛，於何而有縛？」
and one with no body is not bound either; where then can there be bondage?"
若謂五陰身名為縛，若眾生先有五陰，則不應縛。何以故？一人有二身故。無身亦不應縛。何以故？若無身則無五陰，無五陰則空，云何可縛？如是第三更無所縛。復次：
If the body of the five aggregates is called bondage, then if beings already had the five aggregates beforehand, they should not be bound. Why? Because then the same person would have two bodies. Having no body also should not be bound. Why? If there is no body there are no five aggregates, and with no five aggregates there is emptiness; how can emptiness be bound? Thus a third case has even less to be bound. Furthermore:
「若可縛先縛，則應縛可縛；
"If something bindable already had bondage beforehand, it should bind this bindable;
而先實無縛，餘如去來答。」
but in fact there was no bondage beforehand, and the rest is as answered in the chapter on Going and Coming."
若謂可縛先有縛，則應縛可縛。而實離可縛先無縛，是故不得言眾生有縛。或言，眾生是可縛、五陰是縛；或言，五陰中諸煩惱是縛、餘五陰是可縛。是事不然。何以故？若離五陰先有眾生者，則應以五陰縛眾生，而實離五陰無別眾生。若離五陰別有煩惱者，則應以煩惱縛五陰，而實離五陰無別煩惱。復次如〈去來品〉中說，已去不去、未去不去、去時不去，如是未縛不縛、縛已不縛、縛時不縛。復次亦無有解。何以故？
If one says the bindable already had bondage before, it should bind this bindable. But in fact, apart from the bindable, there was no bondage beforehand, so one cannot say beings have bondage. Or one says beings are the bindable and the five aggregates are the bonds; or that the various afflictions within the five aggregates are the bonds and the other aggregates are the bindable. This is not right. Why? If beings already existed apart from the five aggregates, then one should use the five aggregates to bind beings; but in fact there are no other beings apart from the five aggregates. If there were afflictions apart from the five aggregates, then one should use afflictions to bind the five aggregates; but in fact there are no other afflictions apart from the five aggregates. Furthermore, as is said in the chapter on Going and Coming: what has gone does not go, what has not yet gone does not go, and what is going does not go; likewise, what is not yet bound is not bound, what is already bound is not bound, and what is being bound is not bound. Furthermore, there is no liberation either. Why?
「縛者無有解，無縛亦無解，
"What is already bound has no liberation, what is not bound has no liberation either,
縛時有解者，縛解則一時。」
if liberation exists while being bound, then bondage and liberation would be at the same moment."
縛者無有解。何以故？已縛故。無縛亦無解。何以故？無縛故。若謂縛時有解，則縛解一時，是事不然，又縛解相違故。
What is already bound has no liberation. Why? Because it is already bound. What is not bound also has no liberation. Why? Because there is no bondage. If one says there is liberation while being bound, then bondage and liberation would be at the same moment, which is not right, and bondage and liberation contradict each other.
問曰：有人修道現入涅槃得解脫，云何言無？
The questioner said: Some people cultivate the Way, and in this very life enter nirvana and attain liberation; how can you say it does not exist?
答曰：
The answerer said:
「若不受諸法，我當得涅槃；
"If I do not grasp any dharmas, I will attain nirvana;
若人如是者，還為受所縛。」
if a person is like this, he is still bound by grasping."
若人作是念：我離受得涅槃。是人即為受所縛。復次：
If a person has this thought: I will attain nirvana by leaving grasping, this person is bound by grasping. Furthermore:
「不離於生死，而別有涅槃，
"Apart from birth and death, there is no separate nirvana,
實相義如是，云何有分別？」
such is the meaning of true reality; how can there still be discrimination?"
諸法實相第一義中，不說離生死別有涅槃。如經說，涅槃即生死、生死即涅槃。如是諸法實相中，云何言是生死、是涅槃？
In the true reality of dharmas, the first principle, it is not said that apart from birth and death there is a separate nirvana. As the sutra says: nirvana is birth and death, and birth and death is nirvana. Thus in the true reality of dharmas, how can one say this is birth and death and this is nirvana?
中論觀業品第十七(三十三偈)
Madhyamaka-shastra, Chapter Seventeen: Examination of Karma (thirty-three verses)
問曰：汝雖種種破諸法，而業決定有，能令一切眾生受果報。如經說，一切眾生皆隨業而生，惡者入地獄、修福者生天、行道者得涅槃，是故一切法不應空。所謂業者：
The questioner said: Although you refute all dharmas in various ways, karma definitely exists and lets all beings receive its retribution. As the sutra says: all beings are born following karma; those who do evil enter hell, those who cultivate merit are born in heaven, and those who practice the Way attain nirvana, so all dharmas should not be empty. As for what is called karma:
「人能降伏心，利益於眾生，
"A person who can subdue the mind and benefit beings,
是名為慈善，二世果報種。」
this is called kindness and goodness, the seed of the retribution of two lives."
人有三毒，為惱他故生行。善者先自滅惡，是故說降伏其心利益他人。利益他者，行佈施、持戒、忍辱等，不惱眾生，是名利益他，亦名慈善福德，亦名今世後世樂果種子。復次：
People have the three poisons, and in order to afflict others they give rise to actions. A good person first extinguishes evil in himself, and so it is said to subdue one's mind and benefit others. What is meant by benefiting others: practicing giving, keeping precepts, patience, and so on, not afflicting beings; this is called benefiting others, also called kindness, goodness, and merit, and also called the seed of the fruit of happiness in this life and the next. Furthermore:
「大聖說二業，思與從思生，
"The Great Sage speaks of two kinds of karma, volition and what arises from volition,
是業別相中，種種分別說。」
within the distinct marks of karma, they are explained in various divisions."
大聖略說業有二種：一者思、二者從思生，是二業如阿毘曇中廣說。
The Great Sage briefly says there are two kinds of karma: first, volition; second, what arises from volition. These two kinds of karma are explained at length in the Abhidharma.