Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One

若緣能生果，應有三種：若有、若無、若有無。如先偈中說，緣中若先有果，不應言生，以先有故。若先無果，不應言生，以先無故，亦應與非緣同故。有無亦不生者，有無名為半有半無，二俱有過。又有與無相違，無與有相違，何得一法有二相？如是三種求果生相不可得故，云何言有因緣？次第緣者：

If a condition could produce an effect, there should be only three kinds: either existence, or non-existence, or both existence and non-existence. As in the earlier verses: if the effect already existed beforehand in the condition, one should not speak of arising, because it already existed first. If the effect did not exist beforehand, one should also not speak of arising, because it did not exist first and so would be the same as a non-condition. Both existence and non-existence also cannot produce: what is called existence and non-existence is only half existence and half non-existence, and the faults of both sides remain. Moreover, existence and non-existence are contrary to each other, and non-existence and existence are contrary to each other; how can one dharma have two marks? In this way, in seeking the arising of an effect through the three alternatives, one cannot find it; how can one speak of dependent origination? Now regarding the immediately preceding condition:

「果若未生時，則不應有滅，

"If the effect has not yet arisen, it should not already have ceased,

滅法何能緣？故無次第緣。」

How can a dharma that has already ceased still be a condition? So there is no immediately preceding condition."

諸心心數法於三世中次第生。現在心心數法滅，與未來心作次第緣。未來法未生，與誰作次第緣？若未來法已有，即是生，何用次第緣？現在心心數法無有住時，若不住，何能為次第緣，若有住，則非有為法。何以故，一切有為法常有滅相故。若滅已，則不能與作次第緣。若言滅法猶有則是常，若常則無罪福等。若謂滅時能與作次第緣，滅時半滅半未滅，更無第三法名為滅時。又佛說：一切有為法念念滅，無一念時住。云何言現在法有欲滅未欲滅？汝謂一念中無是欲滅未欲滅，則破自法。汝阿毘曇說：有滅法、有不滅法；有欲滅法、有不欲滅法。欲滅法者，現在法將欲滅。未欲滅法者，除現在將欲滅法，餘現在法及過去未來無為法，是名不欲滅法。是故無次第緣。緣緣者：

Minds and mental factors arise in sequence across the three times of past, present and future. When the present mind and mental factors cease, they serve as the immediately preceding condition for the future mind and mental factors. The future dharma has not yet arisen; for whom does it serve as immediately preceding condition? If the future dharma already existed, it would already have arisen, so what need is there of an immediately preceding condition? The present mind and mental factors have no moment of staying; if it does not stay, how can it serve as an immediately preceding condition; if it stays, it is not a conditioned dharma. Why? All conditioned dharmas always carry the mark of ceasing. If it has already ceased, it cannot again serve as an immediately preceding condition for another. If you say a dharma that has ceased still exists, that is permanence; if permanence, there is no such thing as sin and merit. If you say that at the moment of ceasing it can serve as an immediately preceding condition, the time of ceasing is half ceased and half not yet ceased, and apart from this there is no third dharma called "the time of ceasing." Furthermore, the Buddha said that all conditioned dharmas cease in every thought-moment, with no thought-moment that stays. How can you say that a present dharma has "about to cease" and "not yet about to cease"? If you say that within one thought-moment there is no such "about to cease / not about to cease," you refute your own dharma. Your Abhidharma says: there are dharmas that cease and dharmas that do not cease; there are dharmas about to cease and dharmas not about to cease. A dharma about to cease refers to a present dharma that is just about to cease. A dharma not about to cease, apart from the present dharma that is just about to cease, includes all other present dharmas as well as past, future and unconditioned dharmas, which are called dharmas not about to cease. So there is no immediately preceding condition. Now regarding the object condition:

「如諸佛所說，真實微妙法，

"As the buddhas have taught, the true and subtle dharma,

於此無緣法，云何有緣緣？」

Here there is no dharma to be taken as an object, so how could there be an object condition?"

佛說大乘諸法，若有色無色、有形無形、有漏無漏、有為無為等諸法相入於法性，一切皆空無相無緣。譬如眾流入海同為一味。實法可信，隨宜所說不可為實，是故無緣緣。增上緣者：

The Buddha teaches the dharmas of the Great Vehicle: whether with form or without form, with shape or without shape, tainted or untainted, conditioned or unconditioned, the marks of these dharmas all enter the dharma-nature, all are empty, with no marks and no object. Like many streams entering the great sea, they all become one taste. What can be believed is this real dharma; what is taught as convenient cannot be taken as real, so there is no object condition. Now regarding the dominant condition:

「諸法無自性，故無有有相；

"Dharmas have no self-nature, so there is also no mark of "existence";

說有是事故，是事有不然。」

To say "because there is this thing, there is that thing" does not hold."

經說十二因緣，是事有故是事有。此則不然。何以故？諸法從眾緣生故自無定性，自無定性故無有有相。有相無故，何得言是事有故是事有？是故無增上緣，佛隨凡夫分別有無故說。復次：

The sutras speak of the twelve links of dependent origination as "because this exists, that exists." This is not right. Why? All dharmas arise from many conditions and have no fixed nature of their own; if they have no fixed nature of their own, they have no mark of "existing." If there is not even the mark of existing, how can one say "because this exists, that exists"? So there is no dominant condition; the Buddha spoke this way only to follow the discriminations of ordinary people about being and non-being. Furthermore:

「略廣因緣中，求果不可得；

"In the causes and conditions spoken of briefly or at length, no fruit can be found by seeking;

因緣中若無，云何從緣出？」

if it is not within the causes and conditions, how can it be born from the conditions?"

略者，於和合因緣中無果。廣者，於一一緣中亦無果。若略廣因緣中無果，云何言果從因緣出？復次：

"Briefly" means that in the causes and conditions taken together there is no fruit. "At length" means that in each single condition there is no fruit either. If there is no fruit in the causes and conditions, whether spoken of briefly or at length, how can one say that the fruit comes from the causes and conditions? Furthermore:

「若謂緣無果，而從緣中出；

"If one says there is no fruit in the conditions, yet it is born from the conditions;

是果何不從，非緣中而出？」

why is this fruit not born from non-conditions?"

若因緣中求果不可得，何故不從非緣出？如泥中無瓶，何故不從乳中出？復次：

If no fruit can be found by seeking in the causes and conditions, why is it not born from non-conditions? Just as there is no pot in the clay, why is it not born from milk? Furthermore:

「若果從緣生，是緣無自性，

"If the fruit is born from conditions, these conditions have no self-nature,

從無自性生，何得從緣生？

and being born from what has no self-nature, how can it be called born from conditions?

果不從緣生，不從非緣生，

The fruit is neither born from conditions nor born from non-conditions,

以果無有故，緣非緣亦無。」

for since the fruit itself does not exist, conditions and non-conditions do not exist either."

果從眾緣生，是緣無自性。若無自性則無法，無法何能生？是故果不從緣生。不從非緣生者，破緣故說非緣。實無非緣法，是故不從非緣生。若不從二生，是則無果。無果故，緣非緣亦無。

The fruit is born from many conditions, but these conditions have no self-nature. If there is no self-nature, there is no dharma, and how can what has no dharma give birth? So the fruit is not born from conditions. As for "not born from non-conditions": "non-condition" is spoken of only in order to refute conditions. In fact there is no dharma called non-condition, so it is also not born from non-conditions. If it is not born from either of these two sides, then there is no fruit. If there is no fruit, then conditions and non-conditions do not exist either.

中論觀去來品第二(二十五偈)

The Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 2: Examination of Going and Coming (twenty-five verses)

問曰：世間眼見三時有作：已去、未去、去時。以有作故，當知有諸法。

The questioner says: In the world one sees with the eyes that "action" exists in three times: already gone, not yet gone, and going. Because there is action, one should know that dharmas exist.

答曰：

The answerer says:

「已去無有去，未去亦無去，

"In what has already gone there is no going, in what has not yet gone there is also no going,

離已去未去，去時亦無去。」

apart from what has gone and what has not gone, in the one who is going there is also no going."

已去無有去，已去故。若離去有去業，是事不然。未去亦無去，未有去法故。去時名半去半未去，不離已去、未去故。

In what has already gone there is no going, because it has already gone. If apart from "going" there were still an action of going, this would be wrong. In what has not yet gone there is also no going, because there is not yet the dharma of going. What is called the going-time is nothing but half gone and half not yet gone, and does not depart from what has gone and what has not gone.

問曰：

The questioner says:

「動處則有去，此中有去時，

"Where there is movement, there is going, and here there is precisely the going-time,

非已去未去，是故去時去。」

which is neither already gone nor not yet gone, so the going-time goes."

隨有作業處，是中應有去。眼見去時中有作業、已去中作業已滅、未去中未有作業，是故當知去時有去。

Wherever there is action, there should be going. The eyes see that in the going-time there is action, while in what has already gone the action has ceased, and in what has not yet gone there is not yet action, so it should be known that the going-time has going.

答曰：

The answerer says:

「云何於去時，而當有去法？

"How can there be, within the going-time, yet another dharma of going?

若離於去法，去時不可得。」

If apart from the dharma of going, the going-time cannot be found."

去時有去法，是事不然。何以故？離去法去時不可得。若離去法有去時者，應去時中有去，如器中有果。復次：

To say that the going-time has the dharma of going is wrong. Why? Apart from the dharma of going, the going-time cannot be found. If apart from the dharma of going there were still a going-time, then the going-time would contain going, like a vessel containing fruit. Furthermore:

「若言去時去，是人則有咎；

"If one says the going-time goes, this person has a fault;

離去有去時，去時獨去故。」

for it would mean there is a going-time apart from going, and the going-time goes by itself."

若謂已去未去中無去、去時實有去者，是人則有咎。若離去法有去時，則不相因待。何以故？若說去時有去，是則為二；而實不爾，是故不得言離去有去時。復次：

If one says that in what has gone and not yet gone there is no going, and only in the going-time is there truly going, this person has a fault. If apart from the dharma of going there were still a going-time, the two would not be mutually dependent. Why? If one says the going-time has going, that would be two separate things; but the fact is not so, so one cannot say that apart from going there is still a going-time. Furthermore:

「若去時有去，則有二種去：

"If in the going-time there is going, there would be two kinds of going:

一謂為去時，二謂去時去。」

one called the going-time, and one called the going-time going."

若謂去時有去，是則有過，所謂有二去：一者因去有去時；二者去時中有去。

If one says the going-time has going, this has a fault, namely that there would be two kinds of going: first, the going-time exists because of going, and second, within the going-time there is again going.

問曰：若有二去，有何咎？

The questioner says: If there are two kinds of going, what is the fault?

答曰：

The answerer says:

「若有二去法，則有二去者；

"If there were two dharmas of going, there would be two goers;

以離於去者，去法不可得。」

for apart from the goer, the dharma of going cannot be found."

若有二去法，則有二去者。何以故？因去法有去者故。一人有二去二去者，此則不然，是故去時亦無去。

If there were two dharmas of going, there would be two goers. Why? Because it is by relying on the dharma of going that there is a goer. But one person having two kinds of going and two goers is wrong, so in the going-time there is also no going.

問曰：離去者無去法，可爾。今三時中定有去者。

The questioner says: Apart from the goer there is no dharma of going, which is acceptable. But now in the three times there must be a goer.

答曰：

The answerer says:

「若離於去者，去法不可得；

"If apart from the goer, the dharma of going cannot be found;

以無去法故，何得有去者？」

since there is no dharma of going, where is there a goer?"

若離於去者，則去法不可得。今云何於無去法中言三時定有去者？復次：

If apart from the goer the dharma of going cannot be found, then how, in the absence of the dharma of going, can one say that in the three times there must be a goer? Furthermore:

「去者則不去，不去者不去；

"The goer does not go, the non-goer also does not go;

離去不去者，無第三去者。」

apart from the goer and the non-goer, there is no third kind of goer."

無有去者。何以故？若有去者，則有二種：若去者、若不去者。若離是二，無第三去者。

There is no goer. Why? If there were a goer, there would be only two kinds: either the goer or the non-goer. Apart from these two, there is no third kind of goer.

問曰：若去者去，有何咎？

The questioner says: If the goer goes, what is the fault?

答曰：

The answerer says:

「若言去者去，云何有此義？

"If one says the goer goes, how can this statement stand?

若離於去法，去者不可得。」

If apart from the dharma of going, the goer cannot be found."

若謂定有去者用去法，是事不然。何以故？離去法，去者不可得故。若離去者定有去法，則去者能用去法；而實不爾。復次：

If one says that a goer definitely exists and makes use of the dharma of going, this is wrong. Why? Apart from the dharma of going, the goer cannot be found. If apart from the goer there definitely were a dharma of going, then one could speak of the goer using the dharma of going; but the fact is not so. Furthermore:

「若去者有去，則有二種去：

"If the goer has going, there would be two kinds of going: