Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
若眾緣和合中無果者，則眾因緣即同非因緣。如乳是酪因緣，若乳中無酪，水中亦無酪。若乳中無酪，則與水同，不應言但從乳出。是故眾緣和合中無果者，是事不然。
If there is no result in the union of many conditions, the many causes and conditions would be the same as non-causes and non-conditions. For example, milk is the cause and condition of curd; if there were no curd in milk, there would be no curd in water either. If there were no curd in milk, it would be the same as water, and one should not say it comes only from milk. So to say there is no result in the union of many conditions is wrong.
問曰：因為果作因已滅，而有因果。無如是咎。
The questioner says: Because the cause has already ceased after serving as cause for the result, there is both cause and result. There is no such fault.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若因與果因，作因已而滅，
"If a cause gives rise to a result as cause and ceases when it has done so,
是因有二體，一與一則滅。」
this cause would have two substances: one that gives and one that ceases."
若因與果作因已而滅者，是因則有二體：一謂與因；二謂滅因。是事不然，一法有二體故。是故因與果作因已而滅，是事不然。
If the cause has ceased after serving as cause for the result, this cause would have two substances: one called the giving cause and one called the ceasing cause. This is wrong, because one dharma would have two substances. So to say the cause ceases after serving as cause for the result is wrong.
問曰：若謂因不與果作因已而滅，亦有果生，有何咎。
The questioner says: If the cause ceases without serving as cause for the result, and yet a result arises, what fault is there?
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若因不與果，作因已而滅，
"If the cause has ceased without serving as cause for the result,
因滅而果生，是果則無因。」
the cause ceases and the result arises, and this result is causeless."
若是因不與果作因已而滅者，則因滅已而果生，是果則無因。是事不然。何以故？現見一切果，無有無因生者。是故汝說因不與果作因已而滅亦有果生者，是事不然。
If the cause has ceased without serving as cause for the result, then the cause ceases and the result arises, and this result is without cause. This is wrong. Why? We see before our eyes that no result arises without a cause. So to say that a result arises even though the cause has ceased without serving as cause is wrong.
問曰：眾緣合時而有果生者，有何咎？
The questioner says: If the result arises at the time the many conditions unite, what fault is there?
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若眾緣合時，而有果生者，
"If the result arises at the time the many conditions unite,
生者及可生，則為一時俱。」
then the producer and the produced would exist together at the same moment."
若眾緣合時有果生者，則生者可生即一時俱。但是事不爾。何以故？如父子不得一時生。是故汝說眾緣合時有果生者，是事不然。
If the result arises when the many conditions unite, the producer and the produced would be together at the same moment. But this is not so. Why? For example, a father and son cannot be born at the same moment. So to say the result arises when the many conditions unite is wrong.
問曰：若先有果生，而後眾緣合，有何咎？
The questioner says: If the result arises first and then the many conditions unite, what fault is there?
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若先有果生，而後眾緣合，
"If the result arises first and then the many conditions unite,
此即離因緣，名為無因果。」
then it is apart from causes and conditions, and is called a causeless result."
若眾緣未合而先有果生者，是事不然，果離因緣故則名無因果。是故汝說眾緣未合時先有果生者，是事則不然。
If the many conditions have not yet united and yet a result arises first, this is wrong: a result apart from causes and conditions is called a causeless result. So to say the result arises first before the many conditions unite is wrong.
問曰：因滅變為果者，有何咎？
The questioner says: If the cause ceases and changes into the result, what fault is there?
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若因變為果，因即至於果，
"If the cause changes into the result, the cause reaches the result,
是則前生因，生已而復生。」
then the cause that was born earlier would be born and born again."
因有二種：一者前生；二者共生。若因滅變為果，是前生因應還更生。但是事不然。何以故？已生物不應更生。若謂是因即變為果，是亦不然。何以故？若即是不名為變，若變不名即是。
There are two kinds of cause: one born earlier, and one born together. If the cause ceases and changes into the result, this earlier-born cause would have to be born again. But this is wrong. Why? A thing already born should not be born again. If one says this cause itself is the result, this is also wrong. Why? If it is the same, it is not called change; if it changes, it is not called the same.
問曰：因不盡滅但名字滅，而因體變為果，如泥團變為瓶，失泥團名而瓶名生。
The questioner says: The cause does not entirely cease, only its name ceases, and the substance of the cause changes into the result, as a lump of clay changes into a pot, losing the name of clay lump while the name of pot arises.
答曰：泥團先滅而有瓶生，不名為變。又泥團體不獨生，瓶瓫甕等皆從泥中出。若泥團但有名，不應變為瓶，變名如乳變為酪。是故汝說因名雖滅而變為果，是事不然。
The respondent says: When the clay lump ceases first, then the pot arises, and this is not called change. Moreover, the substance of the clay lump does not arise by itself; pots, jars and urns all come out of clay. If the clay lump were only a name, it would not change into a pot; what is called change is like milk changing into curd. So to say that though the name of the cause ceases it changes into the result is wrong.
問曰：因雖滅失而能生果，是故有果。無如是咎。
The questioner says: Though the cause is lost and ceases, it can produce a result, and so there is a result. There is no such fault.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「云何因滅失，而能生於果？
"How can a cause that is lost and ceased still produce a result?
又若因在果，云何因生果？」
And if the cause is in the result, how does the cause still produce the result?"
若因滅失已，云何能生果？若因不滅而與果合，何能更生果？
If the cause is lost and ceased, how can it produce a result? If the cause does not cease and joins with the result, how can it still produce the result again?
問曰：是因遍有果而果生。
The questioner says: This cause is entirely full of the result, and so the result arises.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若因遍有果，更生何等果？
"If the cause is entirely full of the result, what kind of result is there still to produce?
因見不見果，是二俱不生。」
Whether the cause sees the result or does not see the result, neither produces it."
是因若不見果，尚不應生果，何況見！若因自不見果，則不應生果。何以故？若不見果，果則不隨因。又未有果，云何生果？若因先見果，不應復生，果已有故。復次：
If this cause cannot see the result, it should not produce the result, much less if it sees it! If the cause itself cannot see the result, it should not produce the result. Why? If it cannot see the result, the result does not follow the cause. And with no result yet, how could it produce a result? If the cause had already seen the result beforehand, it should not produce it again, because the result already exists. Furthermore:
「若言過去因，而於過去果，
"If one speaks of a past cause, then with a past result,
未來現在果，是則終不合。
a future one or a present one, it can in the end never unite.
若言未來因，而於未來果，
If one speaks of a future cause, then with a future result,
現在過去果，是則終不合。
a present one or a past one, it can in the end never unite.
若言現在因，而於現在果，
If one speaks of a present cause, then with a present result,
未來過去果，是則終不合。」
a future one or a past one, it can in the end never unite."
過去果不與過去、未來、現在因合。未來果不與未來、現在、過去因合。現在果不與現在、未來、過去因合。如是三種果，終不與過去、未來、現在因合。復次：
A past result does not unite with a past, future or present cause. A future result does not unite with a future, present or past cause. A present result does not unite with a present, future or past cause. Thus the three kinds of result never unite in the end with a past, future or present cause. Furthermore:
「若不和合者，因何能生果？
"If they do not unite, how can the cause produce the result?
若有和合者，因何能生果？」
If they do unite, how can the cause produce the result?"
若因果不和合則無果，若無果云何因能生果？若謂因果和合時因能生果者，是亦不然。何以故？若果在因中，則因中已有果，云何而復生？復次：
If cause and result do not unite, there is no result; and if there is no result, how can the cause produce a result? If one says that the cause can produce the result when cause and result unite, this too is wrong. Why? If the result were in the cause, the cause would already contain the result, so how could it be produced again? Furthermore:
「若因空無果，因何能生果？
"If the cause is empty and has no result, how can the cause produce a result?
若因不空果，因何能生果？」
If the cause is not empty and has a result, how can the cause produce a result?"
若因無果者，以無果故因空，云何因生果？如人不懷姙，云何能生子？若因先有果，已有果故不應復生。復次，今當說果。
If the cause has no result, then because it has no result the cause is empty; how can it produce a result? Like a person not pregnant, how can she bear a child? If the cause already had a result beforehand, then because it already has the result, it should not produce it again. Furthermore, now we should speak of the result.
「果不空不生，果不空不滅，
"A result that is not empty does not arise, and a result that is not empty does not cease,
以果不空故，不生亦不滅。
because the result is not empty, it neither arises nor ceases.
果空故不生，果空故不滅，
A result that is empty does not arise, and a result that is empty does not cease,
以果是空故，不生亦不滅。」
because the result is empty, it neither arises nor ceases."
果若不空，不應生、不應滅。何以故？果若因中先決定有，更不須復生，生無故無滅，是故果不空故不生不滅。若謂果空故有生滅，是亦不然。何以故？果若空，空名無所有，云何當有生滅？是故說果空故不生不滅。復次，今以一異破因果。
If the result is not empty, it should not arise or cease. Why? If the result already definitely exists within the cause beforehand, it has no need to arise again; where there is no arising, there is no ceasing. So because the result is not empty, it neither arises nor ceases. If one says that because the result is empty there is arising and ceasing, this too is wrong. Why? If the result is empty, and emptiness means having nothing, how can there still be arising and ceasing? So it is said that because the result is empty, it neither arises nor ceases. Furthermore, now sameness and difference are used to refute cause and result.
「因果是一者，是事終不然；
"That cause and result are one is in the end wrong;
因果若異者，是事亦不然。
if cause and result are different, this is also wrong.
若因果是一，生及所生一；
If cause and result are one, then the producer and the produced would be one;
若因果是異，因則同非因。
if cause and result are different, then the cause would be the same as a non-cause.