Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One

有人雖信受分別說諸法，而不墮斷常。如經說五陰無常苦空無我，而不斷滅；雖說罪福無量劫數不失，而不是常。何以故？是法因果常生滅相續故往來不絕，生滅故不常，相續故不斷。

There are those who, though they believe in and distinguish the dharmas, do not fall into annihilation or permanence. For example, the sutras say the five aggregates are impermanent, suffering, empty and without self, yet there is no annihilation; and though they say that sin and merit are not lost through countless kalpas, it is not permanence. Why? This dharma's cause and effect constantly arise and cease in succession, and so go back and forth without break: because they arise and cease, they are not permanent; because they are continuous, they are not broken.

答曰：

The respondent says:

「若因果生滅，相續而不斷；

"If cause and effect arise and cease in continuity without a break;

滅更不生故，因即為斷滅。」

if what has ceased does not arise again, the cause is annihilated."

若汝說諸法因果相續故不斷不常。若滅法已滅更不復生，是則因斷。若因斷，云何有相續？已滅不生故。復次：

If you say the dharmas' cause and effect are continuous and so are neither broken nor permanent: if a dharma that ceases has ceased and does not arise again, this cause is a break. If the cause is broken, how can there still be continuity? Because what has ceased does not arise. Furthermore:

「法住於自性，不應有有無；

"A dharma abiding in its own nature should not have being and also non-being;

涅槃滅相續，則墮於斷滅。」

if nirvana ends continuity, one falls into annihilation."

法決定在有相中，爾時無無相，如瓶定在瓶相，爾時無失壞相。隨有瓶時無失壞相，無瓶時亦無失壞相。何以故？若無瓶則無所破，以是義故滅不可得。離滅故亦無生。何以故？生滅相因待故。又有常等過故，是故不應於一法而有有無。又汝先說因果生滅相續故，雖受諸法不墮斷常。是事不然。何以故？汝說因果相續故有三有相續，滅相續名涅槃。若爾者，涅槃時應墮斷滅，以滅三有相續故。復次：

A dharma that is definitely in the mark of being has at that time no mark of non-being, as a pot definitely in the mark of a pot has at that time no mark of destruction. So long as there is a pot there is no mark of destruction, and when there is no pot there is also no mark of destruction. Why? If there is no pot there is nothing to be destroyed. For this reason cessation cannot be found. Apart from cessation there is no arising either. Why? Arising and ceasing depend on each other. And there are the faults of permanence and so on, so one dharma should not have both being and non-being. And as for what you said before, that cause and effect continue in succession so that though one holds to dharmas one does not fall into annihilation or permanence, this is wrong. Why? You say that cause and effect continue, and so the three existences continue, and that the ending of continuity is called nirvana. If so, at the time of nirvana one would fall into annihilation, because the continuity of the three existences has ended. Furthermore:

「若初有滅者，則無有後有；

"If the former existence has ceased, there is no later existence;

初有若不滅，亦無有後有。」

if the former existence has not ceased, there is also no later existence."

初有名今世有，後有名來世有。若初有滅次有後有，是即無因。是事不然，是故不得言初有滅有後有。若初有不滅，亦不應有後有。何以故？若初有未滅而有後有者，是則一時有二有。是事不然，是故初有不滅無有後有。

The former existence means existence in this life; the later existence means existence in the next life. If the former existence ceases and only then comes the later existence, it is causeless. This is wrong, so one cannot say that the later existence arises only after the former has ceased. If the former existence has not ceased, there should be no later existence either. Why? If the former existence has not yet ceased and yet there is a later existence, then two existences would be at the same moment. This is wrong, so if the former existence does not cease, there is no later existence.

問曰：後有不以初有滅生、不以不滅生，但滅時生。

The questioner says: The later existence does not arise because the former has ceased, nor because it has not ceased, but arises at the moment of ceasing.

答曰：

The respondent says:

「若初有滅時，而後有生者，

"If the former existence is in the course of ceasing, and the later existence is born,

滅時是一有，生時是一有。」

then at the time of ceasing there is one existence, and at the time of arising there is another existence."

若初有滅時後有生者，即二有一時俱：一有是滅時，一有是生時。

If the former existence is ceasing while the later existence is born, then two existences would be together at the same moment: one existence at the time of ceasing and one at the time of arising.

問曰：滅時生時二有俱者則不然。但現見初有滅時後有生。

The questioner says: It is wrong that the two existences of the time of ceasing and the time of arising are together. We only see before us the former existence ceasing and the later existence arising.

答曰：

The respondent says:

「若言於生滅，而謂一時者，

"If one speaks of arising and ceasing yet holds them to be at the same moment,

則於此陰死，即於此陰生。」

then in this very aggregate one dies, and in this very aggregate one is born."

若生時滅時一時無二有，而謂初有滅時後有生者，今應隨在何陰中死，即於此陰生，不應餘陰中生。何以故？死者即是生者。如是死生相違法，不應一時一處。是故汝先說滅時生時一時無二有，但現見初有滅時後有生者，是事不然。復次：

If the time of arising and the time of ceasing are at the same moment without there being two existences, yet one says the former existence is ceasing while the later existence is born: then in whichever aggregate one dies, one should be born in that same aggregate, and should not be born in the other aggregates. Why? The one who dies is the one who is born. Such opposing dharmas as death and birth should not be at the same moment and in the same place. So what you said before, that the time of ceasing and the time of arising are at one moment without there being two existences, and that we only see before us the former existence ceasing and the later existence arising, is wrong. Furthermore:

「三世中求有，相續不可得，

"Seeking existence in the three times, continuity cannot be found,

若三世中無，何有有相續？」

if there is none in the three times, where could there be a continuity of existence?"

三有名欲有、色有、無色有。無始生死中不得實智故，常有三有相續。今於三世中諦求不可得。若三世中無有，當於何處有有相續？當知有有相續，皆從愚痴顛倒故有，實中則無。

The three existences are called the existence of desire, the existence of form and the existence of formlessness. In beginningless birth and death, true wisdom has not been obtained, and so there is always a continuity of the three existences. Now, searching as they truly are in the three times, they cannot be found. If there is no existence in the three times, where could there be a continuity of existence? One should know that every continuity of existence comes from foolish inversion, and in reality there is none.

龍樹菩薩造梵志青目釋

Verses composed by Nagarjuna Bodhisattva, commentary by the Brahmin Pingala (Blue Eyes).

姚秦三藏鳩摩羅什譯

Translated by the Tripitaka Master Kumarajiva of the Later Qin (Yao Qin) dynasty.

觀如來品第二十二(十六偈)

Chapter Twenty-Two: Examination of the Tathagata (sixteen verses)

問曰：一切世中尊，唯有如來正遍知號為法王，一切智人是則應有。

The questioner says: Among all the honored ones of the world, only the Tathagata, Perfectly Enlightened, called the Dharma King, who is omniscient, must surely exist.

答曰：今諦思惟，若有應取；若無何所取？何以故？如來，

The respondent says: Now let us think about it as it truly is: if he exists, he should be grasped; if he does not exist, what is grasped? Why? The Tathagata,

「非陰不離陰，此彼不相在；

"is not the aggregates, not apart from the aggregates, this and that are not in each other;

如來不有陰，何處有如來？」

the Tathagata does not possess the aggregates; where then is the Tathagata?"

若如來實有者，為五陰是如來？為離五陰有如來？為如來中有五陰？為五陰中有如來？為如來有五陰。是事皆不然。五陰非是如來。何以故？生滅相故。五陰生滅相，若如來是五陰，如來即是生滅相。若生滅相者，如來即有無常斷滅等過。又受者受法則一，受者是如來、受法是五陰。是事不然，是故如來非是五陰。離五陰亦無如來，若離五陰有如來者，不應有生滅相。若爾者，如來有常等過。又眼等諸根不能見知，但是事不然，是故離五陰亦無如來。如來中亦無五陰。何以故？若如來中有五陰，如器中有果、水中有魚者，則為有異。若異者，即有如上常等過，是故如來中無五陰。又五陰中無如來。何以故？若五陰中有如來，如床上有人、器中有乳者，如是則有別異，如上說過，是故五陰中無如來。如來亦不有五陰。何以故？若如來有五陰，如人有子，如是則有別異。若爾者，有如上過。是事不然，是故如來不有五陰。如是五種求不可得，何等是如來？

If the Tathagata truly exists, are the five aggregates the Tathagata? Or is there a Tathagata apart from the five aggregates? Or are the five aggregates within the Tathagata? Or is the Tathagata within the five aggregates? Or does the Tathagata possess the five aggregates? None of these is right. The five aggregates are not the Tathagata. Why? Because they are marked by arising and ceasing. The five aggregates are marked by arising and ceasing; if the Tathagata were the five aggregates, the Tathagata would be marked by arising and ceasing. If marked by arising and ceasing, the Tathagata would have the faults of impermanence, annihilation and so on. And the one who takes and what is taken would become one: the one who takes is the Tathagata, and what is taken is the five aggregates. This is wrong, so the Tathagata is not the five aggregates. Apart from the five aggregates there is also no Tathagata. If there were a Tathagata apart from the five aggregates, he should not have the mark of arising and ceasing. If so, the Tathagata would have the faults of permanence and so on. And the sense roots such as the eye could not see or know him, but this is wrong, so apart from the five aggregates there is no Tathagata. Within the Tathagata there are also no five aggregates. Why? If the five aggregates were within the Tathagata, like fruit in a vessel or fish in water, they would be different. If different, there would be the faults of permanence and so on as above, so within the Tathagata there are no five aggregates. And within the five aggregates there is no Tathagata. Why? If the Tathagata were within the five aggregates, like a person on a bed or milk in a vessel, there would be distinction and difference, with the faults described above, so within the five aggregates there is no Tathagata. The Tathagata also does not possess the five aggregates. Why? If the Tathagata possessed the five aggregates, like a person having a child, there would be distinction and difference. If so, there are the faults above. This is wrong, so the Tathagata does not possess the five aggregates. When all five kinds of search fail in this way, what then is the Tathagata?

問曰：如是義求如來不可得，而五陰和合有如來。

The questioner says: In this way, searching by principle, the Tathagata cannot be found, yet from the union of the five aggregates there is a Tathagata.

答曰：

The respondent says:

「陰合有如來，則無有自性；

"If the Tathagata exists through the union of the aggregates, he has no self-nature;

若無有自性，云何因他有？」

if there is no self-nature, how can he exist depending on another?"

若如來五陰和合故有，即無自性。何以故？因五陰和合有故。

If the Tathagata exists because of the union of the five aggregates, he has no self-nature. Why? Because he exists depending on the union of the five aggregates.

問曰：如來不以自性有，但因他性有。

The questioner says: The Tathagata does not exist through self-nature, but only through other-nature.

答曰：若無自性，云何因他性有？何以故？他性亦無自性。又無相待因故，他性不可得，不可得故不名為他。復次：

The respondent says: If there is no self-nature, how can there be existence through other-nature? Why? Other-nature also has no self-nature. And with no cause to depend on, other-nature cannot be found; if it cannot be found, it is not called other. Furthermore:

「法若因他生，是即為非我；

"If a dharma arises depending on another, then it is not me;

若法非我者，云何是如來？」

if a dharma is not me, how can it be the Tathagata?"

若法因眾緣生，即無有我。如因五指有拳，是拳無有自體。如是因五陰名我，是我即無自體。我有種種名，或名眾生、人、天、如來等。若如來因五陰有，即無自性，無自性故無我。若無我，云何說名如來？是故偈中說「法若因他生，是即為非我；若法非我者，云何是如來？」復次：

If a dharma arises depending on many conditions, there is no self. As a fist exists through five fingers, this fist has no substance of its own. In the same way, what is called a self through the five aggregates has no substance of its own. The self has many names, such as being, person, god and Tathagata. If the Tathagata exists depending on the five aggregates, he has no self-nature; with no self-nature, there is no self. If there is no self, how can one still speak of the name of Tathagata? So the verse says: "If a dharma arises depending on another, then it is not me; if a dharma is not me, how can it be the Tathagata?" Furthermore:

「若無有自性，云何有他性？

"If there is no self-nature, how can there be other-nature?

離自性他性，何名為如來？」

Apart from self-nature and other-nature, what is called the Tathagata?"

若無自性，他性亦不應有。因自性故名他性，此無故彼亦無，是故自性、他性二俱無。若離自性、他性，誰為如來？復次：

If there is no self-nature, other-nature should also not exist. Because there is self-nature, it is called other-nature; when this is absent, that is also absent. So neither self-nature nor other-nature exists. If apart from self-nature and other-nature, who is the Tathagata? Furthermore:

「若不因五陰，先有如來者，

"If, not depending on the five aggregates, there were already a Tathagata beforehand,

以今受陰故，則說為如來。

it would be through taking the aggregates now that he is called the Tathagata.

今實不受陰，更無如來法，

But now in truth there is no taking of aggregates, still less a dharma called the Tathagata,

若以不受無，今當云何受？

if there is none because there is no taking, how can there be taking now?

若其未有受，所受不名受，

If there is not yet taking, what is taken is not called taking,

無有無受法，而名為如來。

and there is no dharma without taking that is called the Tathagata.

若於一異中，如來不可得，

If the Tathagata cannot be found in sameness or difference,

五種求亦無，云何受中有？

and the five kinds of search also find nothing, how can he be in what is taken?

又所受五陰，不從自性有，

And the five aggregates that are taken do not exist through self-nature,

若無自性者，云何有他性？」

if there is no self-nature, how can there be other-nature?"

若未受五陰先有如來者，是如來今應受五陰已作如來，而實未受五陰時先無如來，今云何當受？又不受五陰者，五陰不名為受，無有無受而名為如來。又如來一異中求不可得，五陰中五種求亦不可得。若爾者，云何於五陰中說有如來？又所受五陰，不從自性有。若謂從他性有。若不從自性有。云何從他性有？何以故？以無自性故，又他性亦無。復次：

If there were already a Tathagata beforehand who had not yet taken the five aggregates, this Tathagata would now take the five aggregates in order to become the Tathagata; but in fact when the five aggregates have not yet been taken, there was no Tathagata beforehand, so how could he take them now? And if he does not take the five aggregates, the five aggregates are not called what is taken; and there is no dharma without taking that is called the Tathagata. Furthermore, the Tathagata cannot be found in sameness or difference, and cannot be found in the five aggregates by the five kinds of search. If so, how can one say there is a Tathagata in the five aggregates? Also the five aggregates that are taken do not exist through self-nature. If one says they exist through other-nature: if they do not exist through self-nature, how can they exist through other-nature? Why? Because there is no self-nature, and other-nature also does not exist. Furthermore:

「以如是義故，受空受者空，

"By this reasoning, the taking is empty and the taker is empty,

云何當以空，而說空如來？」

how can one still use emptiness to speak of an empty Tathagata?"

以是義思惟，受及受者皆空。若受空者，云何以空受而說空如來？

Reflecting by this principle, both the taking and the taker are empty. If the taking is empty, how can one use an empty taking to speak of an empty Tathagata?

問曰：汝謂受空、受者空，則定有空耶？

The questioner says: You hold that the taking is empty and the taker is empty; does that mean emptiness definitely exists?