Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
若果定有性，因為何所生？
If the result definitely has a nature, what is there for the cause to produce?
若果定無性，因為何所生？
If the result definitely has no nature, what is there for the cause to produce?
因不生果者，則無有因相，
If the cause does not produce a result, then there is no mark of a cause,
若無有因相，誰能有是果？
and if there is no mark of a cause, who could have this result?
若從眾因緣，而有和合生，
If, from the many causes and conditions, there is an arising from union,
和合自不生，云何能生果？
and the union itself is not born, how can it produce a result?
是故果不從，緣合不合生；
So the result is neither born from a union of conditions nor from a non-union;
若無有果者，何處有合法？」
if there is no result, where could there be a dharma of union?"
是眾緣和合法，不能生自體。自體無故，云何能生果？是故果不從緣合生，亦不從不合生。若無有果者，何處有合法？
This dharma of the union of many conditions cannot produce its own substance. With no substance of its own, how can it produce a result? So the result is neither born from a union of conditions nor from a non-union. If there is no result, where could there be a dharma of union?
中論觀成壞品第二十一(二十偈)
The Middle Treatise, Chapter Twenty-One: Examination of Formation and Destruction (twenty verses)
問曰：一切世間事現是壞敗相，是故有壞。
The questioner says: All affairs of the world are plainly marked by decay and destruction, and so there is destruction.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「離成及共成，是中無有壞；
"Apart from formation, and together with formation, there is no destruction in it;
離壞及共壞，是中亦無成。」
apart from destruction, and together with destruction, there is no formation in it."
若有成、若無成，俱無壞。若有壞、若無壞，俱無成。何以故？
Whether there is formation or no formation, there is no destruction. Whether there is destruction or no destruction, there is no formation. Why?
「若離於成者，云何而有壞？
"If apart from formation, how can there still be destruction?
如離生有死，是事則不然。
As if there could be death apart from birth, this is wrong.
成壞共有者，云何有成壞？
If formation and destruction are together, how can there be formation and destruction?
如世間生死，一時俱不然。
As in the world's birth and death, being at the same moment is wrong.
若離於壞者，云何當有成？
If apart from destruction, how can there be formation?
無常未曾有，不在諸法時。」
Impermanence has never been absent from the dharmas at any time."
若離成，壞不可得。何以故？若離成有壞者，則不因成有壞，壞則無因，又無成法而可壞。成名眾緣合，壞名眾緣散，若離成有壞者，無成誰當壞？如無瓶，不得言瓶壞，是故離成無壞。若謂共成有壞者，是亦不然。何以故？法先別成而後有合，合法不離異。若壞離異，壞則無因，是故共成亦無壞。若離壞共壞無有成者，若離壞有成，成則為常，常是不壞相。而實不見有法常不壞相，是故離壞無成。若謂共壞有成者，是亦不然。成壞相違，云何一時有？如人有髮無髮不得一時俱，成壞亦爾，是故共壞有成是事不然。何以故？若謂分別法者，說成中常有壞。是事不然。何以故？若成中常有壞，則不應有住法；而實有住，是故若離壞共壞不應有成。復次：
If apart from formation, destruction cannot be found. Why? If there were destruction apart from formation, then destruction would not depend on formation, and destruction would be causeless; and there would be no dharma of formation to be destroyed. Formation means the union of many conditions, and destruction means the dispersal of many conditions. If there were destruction apart from formation, then with no formation, what would be destroyed? As without a pot one cannot say the pot is destroyed, so apart from formation there is no destruction. If one says destruction exists together with formation, this too is wrong. Why? A dharma is first completed through distinction, and only then is there union, and a dharma of union is not apart from difference. If destruction were apart from difference, destruction would be causeless, so there is no destruction together with formation either. As for 'apart from destruction and together with destruction, there is no formation': if there were formation apart from destruction, formation would be permanent, and the permanent is the mark of the indestructible. But in fact no dharma is ever seen to be always of an indestructible mark, so apart from destruction there is no formation. If one says formation exists together with destruction, this too is wrong. Formation and destruction oppose each other; how could they be at the same moment? As a person cannot have hair and have no hair at the same moment, so it is with formation and destruction, and so to say formation exists together with destruction is wrong. Why? If one who distinguishes dharmas says that destruction is always within formation, this is wrong. Why? If destruction were always within formation, there should be no dharma of abiding; but there really is abiding, so whether apart from destruction or together with destruction, there should be no formation. Furthermore:
「成壞共無成，離亦無有成，
"Formation and destruction together give no formation, apart also give no formation,
是二俱不可，云何當有成？」
neither works; how then can there be formation?"
若成壞共亦無成、離亦無成。若共成則二法相違，云何一時？若離則無因。二門俱不成，云何當有成？若有應說。
If formation and destruction together give no formation, and apart also give no formation: if they achieve it together, two dharmas oppose each other, so how can they be at the same moment? If apart, it is causeless. Neither gate holds; how can there still be formation? If there is, it should be stated.
問曰：現有盡滅相法。是盡滅相法，亦說盡亦說不盡，如是則應有成壞。
The questioner says: There are dharmas now before us with the mark of exhaustion and extinction. This dharma with the mark of exhaustion is said to be exhausted and also not exhausted, and so there should be formation and destruction.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「盡則無有成，不盡亦無成；
"If exhausted, there is no formation; if not exhausted, there is also no formation;
盡則無有壞，不盡亦不壞。」
if exhausted, there is no destruction; if not exhausted, there is also no destruction."
諸法日夜中念念常滅盡，過去如水流不住，是則名盡。是事不可取、不可說，如野馬無決定性可得。如是盡無決定性可得，云何可得分別說有成？是故言盡亦不成。成無故，亦不應有壞，是故說盡亦無有壞。又念念生滅常相續不斷故名不盡，如是法決定常住不斷。云何可得分別說言今是成時？是故說無盡亦無成。成無故無壞，是故說不盡亦無壞。如是推求，實事不可得，故無成無壞。
The dharmas, day and night, moment by moment constantly exhaust and pass, as a flowing stream that does not stop in the past; this is called exhaustion. This cannot be taken or spoken of, like a heat shimmer, with no determinate nature to be found. Since exhaustion has no determinate nature to be found, how can one distinguish and say there is formation? So it is said that exhaustion is not formation either. Since there is no formation, there should be no destruction, and so it is said that exhaustion has no destruction either. And again, moment by moment arising and ceasing continue without break; this is called non-exhaustion, and such a dharma would definitely abide always without interruption. How can one distinguish and say that the present is a time of formation? So it is said that non-exhaustion has no formation either. With no formation there is no destruction, so it is said that non-exhaustion has no destruction either. Searching in this way, no real thing can be found, so there is neither formation nor destruction.
問曰：且置成壞。但令有法，有何咎？
The questioner says: Put formation and destruction aside for now. Let there simply be dharmas; what fault is there?
答曰：
The respondent says:
「若離於成壞，是亦無有法；
"If apart from formation and destruction, there is also no dharma;
若當離於法，亦無有成壞。」
if apart from dharma, there is also no formation or destruction."
離成壞無法者，若法無成無壞，是法應或無或常。而世間無有常法，汝說離成壞有法，是事不然。
As for 'apart from formation and destruction there is no dharma': if a dharma had no formation and no destruction, this dharma would have to be either nonexistent or permanent. But the world has no permanent dharma, so to say that apart from formation and destruction there is a dharma is wrong.
問曰：若離法但有成壞，有何咎？
The questioner says: If apart from dharma there are only formation and destruction, what fault is there?
答曰：離法有成壞，是亦不然。何以故？若離法，誰成誰壞。是故離法有成壞，是事不然。復次：
The respondent says: For there to be formation and destruction apart from dharma is also wrong. Why? If apart from dharma, what is formed and what is destroyed? So to say there is formation and destruction apart from dharma is wrong. Furthermore:
「若法性空者，誰當有成壞？
"If the nature of a dharma is empty, who could have formation and destruction?
若性不空者，亦無有成壞。」
If its nature is not empty, there is also no formation or destruction."
若諸法性空，空何有成壞？若諸法性不空，不空則決定有，亦不應有成壞。復次：
If the nature of all dharmas is empty, where in emptiness is there formation and destruction? If the nature of all dharmas is not empty, then not-empty is definitely existing, and there should again be no formation and destruction. Furthermore:
「成壞若一者，是事則不然；
"If formation and destruction are one, this is wrong;
成壞若異者，是事亦不然。」
if formation and destruction are different, this too is wrong."
推求成壞一則不可得。何以故？異相故、種種分別故。又成壞異亦不可得。何以故？無有別故、亦無因故。復次：
Searching for formation and destruction as one, it cannot be found. Why? Because the marks differ, and because of the various distinctions. And that formation and destruction are different also cannot be found. Why? Because there is no distinction and also no cause. Furthermore:
「若謂以眼見，而有生滅者，
"If one says there is arising and ceasing because the eyes see it,
則為是痴妄，而見有生滅。」
it is only through foolish delusion that one sees arising and ceasing."
若謂以眼見有生滅者，云何以言說破？是事不然。何以故？眼見生滅者，則是愚痴顛倒故。見諸法性空、無決定、如幻如夢，但凡夫先世顛倒因緣得此眼，今世憶想分別因緣故，言眼見生滅。第一義中實無生滅，是事已於〈破相品〉中廣說。復次：
If one says there is arising and ceasing because the eyes see it, by what means can it be refuted with words? This is wrong. Why? The eyes' seeing of arising and ceasing is foolish inversion. One sees that the nature of all dharmas is empty, indeterminate, like illusions and dreams; it is only because ordinary people, through the inverted causes and conditions of a former life, obtained these eyes, and because of the causes and conditions of recollection and discrimination in this life, that they say the eyes see arising and ceasing. In the ultimate meaning there is truly no arising or ceasing, as has already been explained at length in the chapter on refuting marks. Furthermore:
「從法不生法，亦不生非法；
"From a dharma no dharma is born, nor is a non-dharma born;
從非法不生，法及於非法。」
from a non-dharma no dharma is born, nor is a non-dharma born."
從法不生法者，若失若至，二俱不然。從法生法，若至若失，是則無因，無因則墮斷常。若已至從法生法，是法至已而名為生，則為是常，又生已更生，又亦無因生。是事不然。若已失從法生法者，是則失因，生者無因，是故從失亦不生法。從法不生非法者，非法名無所有、法名有，云何從有相生無相？是故從法不生非法。從非法不生法者，非法名為無，無云何生有？若從無生有者，是則無因，無因則有大過，是故不從非法生法。不從非法生非法者，非法名無所有，云何從無所有生無所有？如兔角不生龜毛，是故不從非法生非法。
As for 'from a dharma no dharma is born': whether by loss or by arrival, neither is right. If a dharma is born from a dharma, whether by arrival or by loss, it is causeless; and the causeless falls into annihilation and permanence. If, when it has already arrived, a dharma is born from a dharma, this dharma is only called born once it has arrived, and so it is permanent, and born again and again, and again would be born without cause. This is wrong. If, when it has already been lost, a dharma is born from a dharma, it has lost its cause, and the one born has no cause, so from loss also no dharma is born. As for 'from a dharma no non-dharma is born': a non-dharma means having nothing, a dharma means having something; how can the mark of nothing arise from the mark of something? So from a dharma no non-dharma is born. As for 'from a non-dharma no dharma is born': a non-dharma means nonexistent; how could nonexistence give birth to existence? If existence were born from nonexistence, it would be causeless; the causeless has great faults, so from a non-dharma no dharma is born. As for 'not from a non-dharma is a non-dharma born': a non-dharma means having nothing at all; how could nothing be born from nothing? As the horns of a rabbit do not give birth to the hair of a tortoise, so from a non-dharma no non-dharma is born.
問曰：法非法雖種種分別故無生，但法應生法。
The questioner says: Though dharma and non-dharma, through various distinctions, are unborn, a dharma should still give birth to a dharma.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「法不從自生，亦不從他生，
"A dharma is not born from itself, nor from another,
不從自他生，云何而有生？」
nor from self and other together; how then can there be birth?"
法未生時無所有故，又即自不生故，是故法不自生。若法未生則亦無他，無他故不得言從他生。又未生則無自，無自亦無他，共亦不生。若三種不生，云何從法有法生？復次：
When a dharma has not yet been born, it has nothing, and it is by itself unborn, so a dharma is not born from itself. If a dharma has not yet been born, there is also no other; with no other, one cannot say it is born from another. And before birth there is no self, and with no self there is also no other, and together they do not give birth either. If all three do not give birth, how can a dharma be born from a dharma? Furthermore:
「若有所受法，即墮於斷常，
"If there are dharmas that are grasped, one falls into annihilation or permanence,
當知所受法，為常為無常。」
and it should be known that a grasped dharma is either permanent or impermanent."
受法者，分別是善是不善、常無常等，是人必墮若常見若斷見。何以故？所受法應有二種：若常、若無常。二俱不然。何以故？若常即墮常邊，若無常即墮斷邊。
As for taking up dharmas: distinguishing this as good, this as not good, permanent, impermanent and so on, this person must fall into the view of permanence or the view of annihilation. Why? A grasped dharma must be one of two kinds: permanent or impermanent. Neither is right. Why? If permanent, one falls into the extreme of permanence; if impermanent, one falls into the extreme of annihilation.
問曰：
The questioner says:
「所有受法者，不墮於斷常，
"Those who hold to dharmas do not fall into annihilation or permanence,
因果相續故，不斷亦不常。」
because cause and effect continue in succession, neither broken nor permanent."