Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One

又無我無我所者，於第一義中亦不可得。無我無我所者，能真見諸法。凡夫人以我我所障慧眼故，不能見實。今聖人無我我所故，諸煩惱亦滅。諸煩惱滅故，能見諸法實相。內外我我所滅故諸受亦滅，諸受滅故無量後身皆亦滅，是名說無餘涅槃。

Moreover, no-self and no what belongs to self also cannot be found in the first principle. One who has no-self and no what belongs to self can truly see dharmas. Ordinary people, because of self and what belongs to self, have their wisdom eye blocked and cannot see reality. Now the sages have no self and no what belongs to self, and afflictions are also extinguished. When afflictions are extinguished, they can see the true reality of dharmas. When self and what belongs to self, inside and outside, are extinguished, feelings are also extinguished; when feelings are extinguished, the immeasurable future bodies are all extinguished, and this is called speaking of nirvana without remainder.

問曰：有餘涅槃云何？

The questioner said: What about nirvana with remainder?

答曰：諸煩惱及業滅故，名心得解脫。是諸煩惱業皆從憶想分別生、無有實，諸憶想分別皆從戲論生。得諸法實相畢竟空，諸戲論則滅，是名說有餘涅槃。實相法如是。諸佛以一切智觀眾生故，種種為說，亦說有我亦說無我。若心未熟者，未有涅槃分，不知畏罪，為是等故說有我。又有得道者，知諸法空，但假名有我，為是等故說我無咎。又有佈施持戒等福德，厭離生死苦惱畏涅槃永滅，是故佛為是等說無我。諸法但因緣和合，生時空生、滅時空滅，是故說無我，但假名說有我。又得道者，知無我不墮斷滅，故說無我無咎。是故偈中說，諸佛說有我，亦說於無我，若於真實中，不說我非我。

The answerer said: When afflictions and karma are extinguished, it is called the mind attaining liberation. These afflictions and karma all arise from recollection and discrimination and are not real; all recollection and discrimination arise from conceptual proliferation. Attaining the ultimate emptiness of the true reality of dharmas, conceptual proliferation is extinguished, and this is called speaking of nirvana with remainder. The Dharma of true reality is thus. The Buddhas, observing beings with omniscient wisdom, teach them in various ways: they speak of a self and also speak of no-self. If the mind is not yet ripe, not yet a part of nirvana, and does not know to fear offenses, they speak of a self for these people. There are also those who have attained the Way and know that dharmas are empty, and that a self is only a provisional name, and for these people speaking of a self is without fault. There are also those with the merit of giving, keeping precepts, and the like, who are weary of the suffering of birth and death and fear the permanent extinction of nirvana, and so the Buddha speaks of no-self for these people. Dharmas are only the harmonious joining of causes and conditions; when they arise it is empty arising, and when they cease it is empty ceasing, so no-self is spoken of, and only provisionally is a self spoken of. Also, those who have attained the Way know no-self without falling into annihilation, so speaking of no-self is without fault. Therefore the verse says: the Buddhas speak of a self and also speak of no-self; in true reality, neither self nor non-self is spoken of.

問曰：若無我是實，但以世俗故說有我，有何咎？

The questioner said: If no-self is real, and a self is spoken of only because of worldly convention, what fault is there?

答曰：因破我法有無我，我決定不可得，何有無我。若決定有無我，則是斷滅生於貪著。如《般若》中說菩薩有我亦非行、無我亦非行。

The answerer said: Because the dharma of self is refuted, there is no-self; since a self is definitely not found, where would no-self be? If no-self definitely existed, it would be annihilation, giving rise to clinging. As the Prajna sutra says: a Bodhisattva's having a self is not practice, and having no-self is also not practice.

問曰：若不說我非我、空不空，佛法為何所說？

The questioner said: If neither self, non-self, empty, nor not empty is spoken of, what does the Buddha's teaching speak of?

答曰：佛說諸法實相，實相中無語言道、滅諸心行。心以取相緣生，以先世業果報故有，不能實見諸法，是故說心行滅。

The answerer said: The Buddha speaks of the true reality of dharmas. In true reality there is no path of language, and all mental activity is extinguished. The mind arises from grasping marks and conditions and exists through the fruit of former karma, and cannot see dharmas as they are, and so it is said that mental activity is extinguished.

問曰：若諸凡夫心不能見實，聖人心應能見實，何故說一切心行滅？

The questioner said: If the minds of ordinary beings cannot see reality, the minds of sages should be able to see reality; why do you say that all mental activity is extinguished?

答曰：諸法實相即是涅槃。涅槃名滅，是滅為向涅槃，故亦名為滅。若心是實，何用空等解脫門？諸禪定中，何故以滅盡定為第一？又亦終歸無餘涅槃。是故當知，一切心行皆是虛妄，虛妄故應滅。諸法實相者，出諸心數法，無生無滅、寂滅相，如涅槃。

The answerer said: The true reality of dharmas is nirvana. Nirvana is called extinction; this extinction, because it heads toward nirvana, is also called extinction. If the mind were real, what use would there be for the gates of liberation such as emptiness? Among the meditative absorptions, why is the cessation absorption the foremost? And it ends in nirvana without remainder. So it should be known that all mental activity is false; because it is false, it should be extinguished. The true reality of dharmas goes beyond the mental factors, with the mark of no arising, no ceasing, and stillness, like nirvana.

問曰：經中說，諸法先來寂滅相即是涅槃。何以言如涅槃？

The questioner said: The sutra says that dharmas are originally of the mark of stillness, which is nirvana. Why say "like nirvana"?

答曰：著法者分別法有二種：是世間、是涅槃。說涅槃是寂滅，不說世間是寂滅。此論中說一切法性空寂滅相，為著法者不解故，以涅槃為喻。如汝說涅槃相空無相寂滅無戲論，一切世間法亦如是。

The answerer said: Those who cling to dharmas discriminate two kinds of dharma: this is the world, and this is nirvana. They say nirvana is stillness, and do not say the world is stillness. This treatise says that the nature of all dharmas is empty and of the mark of stillness; because those who cling to dharmas do not understand, nirvana is used as an analogy. As you say that the mark of nirvana is empty, signless, still, and without conceptual proliferation, all worldly dharmas are also like this.

問曰：若佛不說我非我，諸心行滅、言語道斷者，云何令人知諸法實相？

The questioner said: If the Buddha does not speak of self or non-self, all mental activity is extinguished and the path of language is cut off, how does one let people know the true reality of dharmas?

答曰：諸佛無量方便力，諸法無決定相，為度眾生或說一切實、或說一切不實、或說一切實不實、或說一切非實非不實。一切實者，推求諸法實性，皆入第一義平等一相，所謂無相。如諸流異色異味，入於大海則一色一味。一切不實者，諸法未入實相時，各各分別觀皆無有實，但眾緣合故有。一切實不實者，眾生有三品，有上、中、下。上者觀諸法相非實非不實；中者觀諸法相一切實一切不實；下者智力淺故，觀諸法相少實少不實，觀涅槃無為法不壞故實，觀生死有為法虛偽故不實。非實非不實者，為破實不實，故說非實非不實。

The answerer said: The Buddhas have immeasurable power of skillful means. Dharmas have no definite mark, and in order to liberate beings, they sometimes say all is real, sometimes say all is not real, sometimes say all is both real and not real, and sometimes say all is neither real nor not real. What is called all is real: searching for the real nature of dharmas, all enter the first principle, equal and of one mark, namely signless. Like the various rivers differing in color and flavor, which on entering the great ocean become one color and one flavor. What is called all is not real: when dharmas have not yet entered true reality, when each is observed separately none is real, existing only because of the harmony of many conditions. What is called all is both real and not real: beings are of three grades, high, middle, and low. The highest observe the marks of dharmas as neither real nor not real; the middle observe the marks of dharmas as all real and all not real; the lowest, with shallow wisdom, observe the marks of dharmas as slightly real and slightly not real, seeing the unconditioned dharma of nirvana as real because it is not destroyed and the conditioned dharma of birth and death as not real because it is false. What is called neither real nor not real: in order to refute real and not real, it is said to be neither real nor not real.

問曰：佛於餘處說離非有非無，此中何以言非有非無是佛所說？

The questioner said: Elsewhere the Buddha speaks of leaving behind neither existence nor non-existence; why does he say here that neither existence nor non-existence is spoken by the Buddha?

答曰：餘處為破四種貪著故說。而此中於四句無戲論，聞佛說則得道，是故言非實非不實。

The answerer said: Elsewhere it is said in order to refute the four kinds of clinging. But here, with the four propositions there is no conceptual proliferation, and on hearing the Buddha speak one attains the Way, so it is said to be neither real nor not real.

問曰：知佛以是四句因緣說，又得諸法實相者以何相可知？又實相云何？答曰：若能不隨他。不隨他者，若外道雖現神力說是道是非道，自信其心而不隨之，乃至變身雖不知非佛，善解實相故心不可迴。此中無法可取可捨故，名寂滅相。寂滅相故，不為戲論所戲論。戲論有二種，一者愛論、二者見論，是中無此二戲論。二戲論無故，無憶想分別、無別異相，是名實相。

The questioner said: We know that the Buddha speaks using the causes and conditions of these four propositions; moreover, one who attains the true reality of dharmas, by what mark can one know it? And what is true reality like? The answerer said: If one can not follow others. What is meant by not following others: even if non-Buddhist teachers display spiritual powers and say this is the Way and this is not the Way, one believes one's own mind and does not follow them, even if one transforms and, without knowing that he is not the Buddha, because one understands true reality well, the mind cannot be turned back. In this there is no dharma to take or discard, and it is called the mark of stillness. Because it is the mark of stillness, it is not proliferated by conceptual proliferation. Conceptual proliferation is of two kinds: first, proliferation of desire; second, proliferation of views; here there are neither of these two proliferations. When both proliferations are absent, there is no recollection and discrimination and no mark of separate difference, and this is called true reality.

問曰：若諸法盡空，將不墮斷滅耶？又不生不滅或墮常耶？

The questioner said: If all dharmas are empty, does one not fall into annihilation? And unborn and unceasing, does one perhaps fall into permanence?

答曰：不然。先說實相無戲論，心相寂滅言語道斷。汝今貪著取相，於實相法中見斷常過。得實相者，說諸法從眾緣生，不即是因亦不異因，是故不斷不常。若果異因則是斷，若不異因則是常。

The answerer said: It is not so. As said before, true reality has no conceptual proliferation, the mark of the mind is still, and the path of language is cut off. You now cling to taking marks and see the faults of annihilation and permanence in the Dharma of true reality. One who attains true reality says that dharmas arise from many conditions, and are neither the same as the cause nor different from the cause, so they are neither cut off nor permanent. If the effect were different from the cause it would be annihilation, and if not different from the cause it would be permanence.

問曰：若如是解，有何等利？

The questioner said: If one understands in this way, what benefit is there?

答曰：若行道者能通達如是義，則於一切法不一不異、不斷不常。若能如是，即得滅諸煩惱戲論，得常樂涅槃，是故說諸佛以甘露味教化。如世間言得天甘露漿，則無老病死無諸衰惱。此實相法是真甘露味，佛說實相有三種：若得諸法實相、滅諸煩惱，名為聲聞法；若生大悲發無上心，名為大乘；若佛不出世，無有佛法時，辟支佛因遠離生智。若佛度眾生已入無餘涅槃，遺法滅盡。先世若有應得道者，少觀厭離因緣，獨入山林遠離憒鬧得道，名辟支佛。

The answerer said: If a practitioner of the Way can penetrate such a meaning, then regarding all dharmas there is neither one nor different, neither cut off nor permanent. If one can do so, one extinguishes all afflictions and conceptual proliferation and attains the permanent bliss of nirvana, and so it is said that the Buddhas teach with the taste of sweet dew. As the world says that if one obtains the sweet dew nectar of the gods, there is no aging, illness, or death and no manner of decline and distress. This Dharma of true reality is the true taste of sweet dew. The Buddha says there are three kinds of true reality: if one attains the true reality of dharmas and extinguishes all afflictions, this is called the shravaka Dharma; if one gives rise to great compassion and aspires to the unsurpassed mind, this is called the Mahayana; if a Buddha does not appear in the world and there is no Buddha Dharma, a pratyekabuddha gives rise to wisdom through seclusion. When the Buddha has finished liberating beings and entered nirvana without remainder, and his remaining teaching has ended, if there were people in former lives who should attain the Way, they slightly observe the causes and conditions of weariness and detachment, enter mountain forests alone, leave the clamor, and attain the Way, and are called pratyekabuddhas.

中論觀時品第十九(六偈)

Madhyamaka-shastra, Chapter Nineteen: Examination of Time (six verses)

問曰：應有時，以因待故成。因有過去時，則有未來、現在時；因現在時，有過去、未來時；因未來時，有過去、現在時。上中下一異等法，亦相因待故有。

The questioner said: There should be time, established through mutual dependence. Because there is past time, there is future and present time; because of present time, there is past and future time; because of future time, there is past and present time. High, middle, and low, one and different, and other dharmas also exist through mutual dependence.

答曰：

The answerer said:

「若因過去時，有未來現在；

"If future and present exist because of past time,

未來及現在，應在過去時。」

the future and present should be in past time."

若因過去時，有未來、現在時者，則過去時中應有未來、現在時。何以故？隨所因處有法成，是處應有是法。如因燈有明成，隨有燈處應有明。如是因過去時，成未來、現在時者，則過去時中應有未來、現在時。若過去時中有未來、現在時者，則三時盡名過去時。何以故？未來、現在時在過去時中故。若一切時盡過去者，則無未來、現在時，盡過去故。若無未來、現在時，亦應無過去時。何以故？過去時因未來、現在時故名過去時。如因過去時成未來、現在時，如是亦應因未來、現在時成過去時。今無未來、現在時故，過去時亦應無。是故先說，因過去時成未來、現在時，是事不然。若謂過去時中無未來、現在時，而因過去時成未來、現在時。是事不然。何以故？

If future and present time exist because of past time, then future and present time should exist within past time. Why? Wherever a dharma depends on something to be established, that place should have this dharma. Like light being established because of a lamp, wherever there is a lamp there should be light. In the same way, if future and present time are established because of past time, then future and present time should be in past time. If future and present time are in past time, then all three times are called past time. Why? Because future and present time are in past time. If all times are past, there is no future or present time, because all have become past. If there is no future or present time, there should also be no past time. Why? Past time is called past time because of future and present time. Just as future and present time are established because of past time, so too past time should be established because of future and present time. Now there is no future or present time, so past time should also not exist. Therefore what was said earlier, that future and present time are established because of past time, is not right. If one says there is no future or present time in past time, yet they are established because of past time, this is not right. Why?

「若過去時中，無未來現在；

"If there is no future or present in past time;

未來現在時，云何因過去？」

how can future and present time still depend on the past?"

若未來、現在時不在過去時中者，云何因過去時成未來、現在時。何以故？若三時各異相，不應相因待成，如瓶衣等物各自別成不相因待。而今不因過去時，則未來、現在時不成。不因現在時，則過去、未來時不成。不因未來時，則過去、現在時不成。汝先說過去時中雖無未來、現在時，而因過去時成未來、現在時者。是事不然。

If future and present time are not in past time, how can they be established because of past time? Why? If the three times each have their own mark, they should not be established by mutual dependence, like a pot and a garment, which are established separately and do not depend on each other. But now, without depending on past time, future and present time are not established. Without depending on present time, past and future time are not established. Without depending on future time, past and present time are not established. What you said earlier, that although there is no future or present time in past time they are established because of past time, is not right.

問曰：若不因過去時成未來、現在時，而有何咎？

The questioner said: If future and present time are not established because of past time, what fault is there?

答曰：

The answerer said:

「不因過去時，則無未來時，

"Without depending on past time, there is no future time,

亦無現在時，是故無二時。」

and no present time either, so these two times do not exist."

不因過去時，則不成未來、現在時。何以故？若不因過去時有現在時者，於何處有現在時？未來亦如是，於何處有未來時？是故不因過去時則無未來、現在時，如是相待有故，實無有時。

Without depending on past time, future and present time are not established. Why? If there is present time without depending on past time, where is present time? Future is likewise; where is future time? So without depending on past time, there is no future or present time. Thus they exist through mutual dependence, and in truth there is no time.

「以如是義故，則知餘二時，

"Because of such a principle, one knows the other two times,

上中下一異，是等法皆無。」

high, middle, low, one, and different, these dharmas all do not exist."

以如是義故，當知餘未來現在亦應無，及上中下一異等諸法亦應皆無。如因上有中下，離上則無中下。若離上有中下，則不應相因待。因一故有異、因異故有一，若一實有，不應因異而有；若異實有，不應因一而有。如是等諸法，亦應如是破。

Because of such a principle, one should know that the other two, future and present, should also not exist, and that high, middle, low, one, different, and other dharmas should all not exist. Like middle and low existing because of high; apart from high there is no middle or low. If there were middle and low apart from high, they should not be mutually dependent. Different exists because of one, and one exists because of different; if one truly existed, it should not exist because of different; if different truly existed, it should not exist because of one. Thus all dharmas should be refuted in the same way.

問曰：如有歲月日須臾等差別，故知有時。

The questioner said: Because there are distinctions such as year, month, day, and moment, we know there is time.

答曰：

The answerer said:

「時住不可得，時去亦叵得，

"Time abiding cannot be found, time going also cannot be found,

時若不可得，云何說時相？

if time cannot be found, how can one speak of the mark of time?

因物故有時，離物何有時？

Because of things there is time; apart from things where is time?

物尚無所有，何況當有時！」

If things themselves do not exist, how much less could time exist!"

時若不住，不應可得，時住亦無。若時不可得，云何說時相？若無時相則無時。因物生故則名時，若離物則無時。上來種種因緣破諸物，物無故，何有時？

If time does not abide, it should not be attainable; if time abides, there is no time either. If time cannot be found, how can one speak of the mark of time? If there is no mark of time, there is no time. It is called time because things arise; apart from things there is no time. Above, things have been refuted by various causes and conditions; if there are no things, where is time?

中論觀因果品第二十(二十四偈)

Madhyamaka-shastra, Chapter Twenty: Examination of Cause and Effect (twenty-four verses)

問曰：眾因緣和合現有果生故，當知是果從眾緣和合有。

The questioner said: Many causes and conditions come together, and a fruit now arises before us; one should know that this fruit exists from the harmony of many conditions.

答曰：

The answerer said:

「若眾緣和合，而有果生者；

"If a result arises from the union of many conditions;

和合中已有，何須和合生？」

if it is already in the union, what need is there for it to arise from the union?"

若謂眾因緣和合有果生，是果則和合中已有。而從和合生者，是事不然。何以故？果若先有定體，則不應從和合生。

If one says a result arises from the union of many causes and conditions, then the result already exists within the union. Yet to say it again arises from the union is wrong. Why? If the result already had a determinate substance beforehand, it should not arise from the union.

問曰：眾緣和合中雖無果，而果從眾緣生者，有何咎？

The questioner says: Though the result is not within the union of many conditions, the result arises from many conditions; what fault is there?

答曰：

The respondent says:

「若眾緣和合，是中無果者，

"If the many conditions unite, and there is no result in this,

云何從眾緣，和合而果生？」

how does the result arise from the union of many conditions?"

若從眾緣和合則果生者，是和合中無果，而從和合生。是事不然。何以故？若物無自性，是物終不生。復次：

If the result arises from the union of many conditions, and this union has no result within it, yet it arises from the union, this is wrong. Why? If a thing has no self-nature, this thing in the end does not arise. Furthermore:

「若眾緣和合，是中有果者；

"If the many conditions unite and there is a result within this;

和合中應有，而實不可得。」

it should be in the union, yet it cannot actually be found."

若從眾緣和合中有果者，若色應可眼見、若非色應可意知，而實和合中果不可得。是故和合中有果，是事不然。復次：

If there were a result in the union of many conditions: if it were form, it should be visible to the eye; if it were not form, it should be knowable by the mind. But in fact the result cannot be found in the union. So to say the result is in the union is wrong. Furthermore:

「若眾緣和合，是中無果者；

"If the many conditions unite and there is no result within this;

是則眾因緣，與非因緣同。」

then these many causes and conditions would be the same as non-causes and non-conditions."