Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
無人亦無處，佛亦無所說。」
there is no person and no place, and the Buddha has nothing that he taught."
一切法、一切時、一切種，從眾緣生故，畢竟空故無自性。如是法中，何者是有邊，誰為有邊？何者是無邊，亦有邊亦無邊，非有邊非無邊。誰為非有邊非無邊？何者是常，誰為是常？何者是無常，常無常非常非無常，誰為非常非無常？何者身即是神，何者身異於神？如是等六十二邪見，於畢竟空中皆不可得。諸有所得皆息、戲論皆滅。戲論滅故，通達諸法實相得安隱道。從〈因緣品〉來，分別推求諸法，有亦無、無亦無、有無亦無、非有非無亦無，是名諸法實相，亦名如，法性，實際，涅槃。是故如來無時無處為人說涅槃定相，是故說諸有所得皆息、戲論皆滅。
All dharmas, at all times and of all kinds, arise from many conditions, and so are ultimately empty and so have no self-nature. In such a dharma, what is finite, and who is finite? What is infinite, both finite and infinite, neither finite nor infinite? Who is neither finite nor infinite? What is permanent, and who is permanent? What is impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, neither permanent nor impermanent, and who is neither permanent nor impermanent? What is that the body is the spirit, and what is that the body differs from the spirit? Such sixty-two wrong views cannot be found within ultimate emptiness. All that is attained is stilled and all conceptual proliferation is extinguished. With conceptual proliferation extinguished, one penetrates the real characteristic of dharmas and attains the path of peace. From the chapter on conditions onward, dharmas have been distinguished and sought: existence is not found, non-existence is not found, both existence and non-existence is not found, neither existence nor non-existence is not found; this is called the real characteristic of dharmas, also called suchness, Dharma-nature, the actual limit and nirvana. So the Tathagata has no time and no place in which he spoke to people of a fixed characteristic of nirvana, and so it is said that all that is attained is stilled and all conceptual proliferation is extinguished.
中論觀十二因緣品第二十六(九偈)
Madhyamaka Treatise: Examination of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, Chapter 26 (nine verses)
問曰：汝以摩訶衍說第一義道，我今欲聞說聲聞法入第一義道。
The questioner says: You have spoken of the path of the ultimate meaning by means of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle); I now wish to hear how one enters the path of the ultimate meaning by means of the shravaka Dharma.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「眾生痴所覆，為後起三行，
"Beings, covered by ignorance, for the sake of later existence produce the three kinds of activity,
以起是行故，隨行墮六趣。
because they produce these activities, they fall into the six destinies following their activities.
以諸行因緣，識受六道身，
Because of the conditions of the activities, consciousness receives and takes bodies in the six paths,
以有識著故，增長於名色。
because consciousness clings, name-and-form increases.
名色增長故，因而生六入，
When name-and-form has increased, the six entrances arise,
情塵識和合，而生於六觸。
and from the union of faculty, object and consciousness the six contacts arise.
因於六觸故，即生於三受，
Because of the six contacts, the three feelings arise,
以因三受故，而生於渴愛。
because of the three feelings, thirst arises.
因愛有四取，因取故有有，
Because of craving there are four kinds of grasping, because of grasping there is becoming,
若取者不取，則解脫無有。
if the grasper does not grasp, one is liberated and there is no becoming.
從有而有生，從生有老死，
From becoming there is birth, from birth there are aging and death,
從老死故有，憂悲諸苦惱。
from aging and death there are grief, sorrow and all kinds of suffering.
如是等諸事，皆從生而有，
All these various things exist from birth,
但以是因緣，而集大苦陰。
and only because of these causes and conditions does the great mass of suffering gather.
是謂為生死，諸行之根本，
This is called the root of birth and death and all activities,
無明者所造，智者所不為。
made by the ignorant, and not done by the wise.
以是事滅故，是事則不生，
Because this thing is extinguished, this thing does not arise,
但是苦陰聚，如是而正滅。」
and only the aggregation of the mass of suffering is thus truly extinguished."
凡夫為無明所盲故，以身口意業，為後身起六趣諸行。隨所起行有上中下，識入六趣隨行受身。以識著因緣故名色集，名色集故有六入，六入因緣故有六觸，六觸因緣故有三受，三受因緣故生渴愛，渴愛因緣故有四取，四取取時以身口意業起罪福，令後三有相續。從有而有生，從生而有老死，從老死有憂悲苦惱種種眾患，但有大苦陰集。是故知凡夫無智，起此生死諸行根本。智者所不起，以如實見故，則無明滅。無明滅故諸行亦滅，以因滅故果亦滅，如是修習觀十二因緣生滅智故是事滅，是事滅故乃至生老死憂悲大苦陰皆如實正滅，正滅者畢竟滅。是十二因緣生滅義，如阿毘曇、修多羅中廣說。
Ordinary people, blinded by ignorance, use the karma of body, speech and mind, for the sake of a later body, to produce the activities of the six destinies. According to the activities produced, which are superior, middling or inferior, consciousness enters the six destinies and receives a body following the activities. Because of the conditions of consciousness's clinging, name-and-form gathers; because name-and-form gathers, there are the six entrances; because of the six entrances, there are the six contacts; because of the six contacts, there are the three feelings; because of the three feelings, thirst arises; because of thirst, there are the four kinds of grasping; and in the grasping, one uses the karma of body, speech and mind to produce sin and merit, so that the later three realms of existence continue. From becoming there is birth, from birth there are aging and death, and from aging and death come grief, sorrow, suffering and distress and all manner of ills, simply the mass of great suffering gathering. So one knows that ordinary people are without wisdom and produce the root of these activities of birth and death. The wise do not produce them, because they see as it really is, and ignorance is extinguished. When ignorance is extinguished, activities too are extinguished; because the cause is extinguished, the result too is extinguished. In this way one practices the wisdom of contemplating the arising and ceasing of the twelve links of dependent origination: this thing is extinguished; and when this thing is extinguished, down to birth, aging and death, grief, sorrow and the great mass of suffering are truly extinguished as they really are. What is called true extinction is ultimate extinction. The meaning of the arising and ceasing of these twelve links is explained at length in the Abhidharma (treatises on the Dharma) and the sutras (Sutra Pitaka).
中論觀邪見品第二十七(三十一偈)
Madhyamaka Treatise: Examination of Wrong Views, Chapter 27 (thirty-one verses)
問曰：已聞大乘法破邪見，今欲聞聲聞法破邪見。
The questioner says: I have heard the Mahayana Dharma breaking wrong views; now I wish to hear how the shravaka Dharma breaks wrong views.
答曰：
The respondent says:
「我於過去世，為有為是無？
"In past lives, did I exist or not?
世間常等見，皆依過去世。
The views that the world is permanent and so on all depend on past lives.
我於未來世，為作為不作？
In future lives, will I be made or not made?
有邊等諸見，皆依未來世。」
The views of finiteness and so on all depend on future lives."
我於過去世，為有、為無、為有無、為非有非無？是名常等諸見依過去世。我於未來世，為作、為不作、為作不作、為非作非不作？是名邊無邊等諸見依未來世。如是等諸邪見，何因緣故名為邪見？是事今當說。
In past lives, did I exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist? These are called the views of permanence and so on, depending on past lives. In future lives, will I be made, not made, both made and not made, or neither made nor not made? These are called the views of finiteness and infiniteness and so on, depending on future lives. Such various wrong views, by what causes and conditions are they called wrong views? This matter should now be explained.
「過去世有我，是事不可得，
"That there was a self in past lives cannot be found,
過去世中我，不作今世我。
the self of past lives is not made into the self of this life.
若謂我即是，而身有異相，
If one says the self is the same, and the body has different characteristics,
若當離於身，何處別有我？
if it should leave the body, where else could the self be?
離身無有我，是事為已成，
Apart from the body there is no self, this matter has been established,
若謂身即我，若都無有我。
if one says the body is the self, or that there is no self at all.
但身不為我，身相生滅故，
But the body is not the self, because the characteristics of the body arise and cease,
云何當以受，而作於受者？
how can grasping make the grasper?
若離身有我，是事則不然，
If there were a self apart from the body, this would not be right,
無受而有我，而實不可得。
a self without grasping is truly not found.
今我不離受，亦不即是受，
Now the self is neither apart from grasping nor identical with grasping,
非無受非無，此即決定義。」
neither without grasping nor non-existent, this is the settled meaning."
我於過去世有者，是事不然。何以故？先世中我不即作今我，有常過故。若常則有無量過。何以故？如人修福因緣故作天而後作人，若先世我即是今我者，天即是人。又人以罪業因緣故作旃陀羅，後作婆羅門。若先世我即是今我者，旃陀羅即是婆羅門。譬如舍衛國婆羅門名提婆達，到王舍城亦名提婆達，不以至王舍城故為異。若先作天後作人，則天即是人，旃陀羅即是婆羅門。但是事不然。何以故？天不即是人，旃陀羅不即是婆羅門，有此等常過故。若謂先世我不作今我，如人浣衣時名為浣者，刈時名為刈者，而浣者與刈者雖不異，而浣者不即是刈者。如是我受天身名為天，我受人身名為人，我不異而身有異者，是事不然。何以故？若即是者，不應言天作人。今浣者於刈者，為異為不異？若不異，浣者應即是刈者，如是先世天即是人，旃陀羅即是婆羅門，我亦有常過。若異者，浣者即不作刈者，如是天不作人，我亦無常，無常則無我相。是故不得言即是。
That I existed in past lives is not right. Why? The self of the former life is not identical with the self of the present, because of the fault of permanence. If permanent there would be countless faults. Why? When a person, through the causes and conditions of cultivating merit, becomes a god and then a human, if the self of the former life were the self of the present, the god would be the human. Again, a person, through the causes and conditions of sin, becomes a chandala (low caste) and later a brahmin. If the self of the former life were the self of the present, the chandala would be the brahmin. It is like a brahmin in Sravasti named Devadatta, who is also called Devadatta when he goes to Rajagriha, and does not become another person by going to Rajagriha. If one earlier became a god and later became a human, the god would be the human, and the chandala would be the brahmin. But this is wrong. Why? A god is not identical with a human, and a chandala is not identical with a brahmin, because of such a fault of permanence. If one says that the self of the former life is not made into the self of the present, like a person who, when washing clothes, is called a clothes-washer and, when cutting grass, is called a grass-cutter, the clothes-washer and the grass-cutter, though not another person, yet the clothes-washer is not identical with the grass-cutter. So I receive a god's body and am called a god, I receive a human body and am called a human, my self has no difference while my body has difference: this is wrong. Why? If it is the same, one should not say a god becomes a human. Now, is the clothes-washer different or not different from the grass-cutter? If not different, the clothes-washer would be the grass-cutter, and thus the god of the former life would be the human, and the chandala the brahmin, and the self would have the fault of permanence. If different, the clothes-washer does not become the grass-cutter, so a god does not become a human, and the self is also impermanent, and what is impermanent has no characteristic of self. So one cannot say it is the same.
問曰：我即是，但因受故分別是天是人，受名五陰身，以業因緣故分別是天是人、是旃陀羅是婆羅門，而我實非天非人、非旃陀羅非婆羅門。是故無如是過。
The questioner says: The self is the same; only because of grasping is one distinguished as god or human. Grasping is called the body of the five aggregates; because of the conditions of karma one is distinguished as god or human, chandala or brahmin, while the self is truly not god or human, not chandala or brahmin. So there is no such fault.
答曰：是事不然。何以故？若身作天作人，作旃陀羅作婆羅門，非是我者，則離身別有我。今罪福生死往來，皆是身非是我。罪因緣故墮三惡道，福因緣故生三善道，若苦樂瞋喜憂怖等，皆是身非我者，何用我為？如治俗人罪，不豫出家人。五陰因緣相續罪福不失故有解脫，若皆是身非我者，何用我為？
The respondent says: This is wrong. Why? If the body becomes a god or human, a chandala or brahmin, and is not the self, then there is a self apart from the body. Now sin and merit, birth, death, coming and going, are all the body and not the self. Through the conditions of sin one falls into the three evil paths, and through the conditions of merit one is born in the three good paths; if suffering and joy, anger and delight, worry and fear and so on are all the body and not the self, what use is the self? It is like punishing a layperson's offense without implicating a monk. The five aggregates continue by conditions, sin and merit are not lost, and so there is liberation; if all is the body and not the self, what use is the self?
問曰：罪福等依止於我，我有所知、身無所知故，知者應是我。起業因緣罪福是作法，當知應有作者。作者是我，身是我所用，亦是我所住處。譬如舍主以草木泥塈等治舍，自為身故隨所用治舍有好惡。我亦如是，隨作善惡等得好醜身，六道生死皆我所作，是故罪福之身皆屬於我。譬如舍但屬舍主不屬他人。
The questioner says: Sin and merit rely on the self. The self has knowledge, and the body has no knowledge, so what can know should be the self. The conditions that give rise to karma, sin and merit, are acts, and one should know there is a doer. The doer is the self, and the body is used by the self and is also the place where the self dwells. It is like a house owner who uses wood, plaster and so on to build a house for his own body, and the houses built are good or bad according to what he uses. The self is likewise: according to doing good or evil and so on, it obtains a fine or ugly body, and birth and death in the six paths are all made by the self, so the bodies of sin and merit all belong to the self. It is like a house that belongs only to the house owner and not to others.
答曰：是喻不然。何以故？舍主有形，有觸有力，故能治舍。汝所說我，無形無觸故無作力，自無作力亦不能使他作。若世間有一法無形無觸能有所作者，則可信受知有作者。但是事不然。若我是作者，則不應自作苦事。若是念者，可貪樂事不應忘失。若我不作苦而苦強生者，餘一切皆亦自生，非我所作。若見者是我，眼能見色眼應是我。若眼見而非我，則違先言見者是我。若見者是我，我則不應得聞聲等諸塵。何以故？眼是見者，不能得聞聲等塵故。是故我是見者，是事不然。若謂如刈者用鎌刈草，我亦如是以手等能有所作者，是事不然。何以故？今離鎌別有刈者，而離身心諸根無別作者。若謂作者雖非眼耳等所得亦有作者，則石女兒能有所作，如是一切諸根皆應無我。若謂右眼見物而左眼識，當知別有見者。是事不然。今右手習作左手不能，是故無別有作者。若別有作者，右手所習左手亦應能，而實不能，是故更無作者。復次有我者言，見他食果口中涎出，是為我相。是事不然。何以故？是念力故，非是我力。又亦即是破我因緣。人在眾中愧於涎出，而涎強出不得自在，當知無我。復次又有顛倒過罪。先世是父今世為子，是父子我一，但身有異。如從一舍至一舍，父故是父，不以入異舍故便有異。若有我，是二應一，如是則有大過。若謂無我五陰相續中亦有是過。是事不然。何以故？五陰雖相續，或時有用、或時無用，如蒲桃漿持戒者應飲，蒲桃酒不應飲，若變為苦酒還復應飲。五陰相續亦如是，有用有不用，若始終一我，有如是過。五陰相續無如是過，但五陰和合故假名為我，無有決定。如梁椽和合有舍，離梁椽無別舍。如是五陰和合故有我，若離五陰實無別我，是故我但有假名無有定實。汝先說離受別有受者，以受分別受者是天是人，是皆不然。當知但有受無別受者，若謂離受別有我，是事不然。
The respondent says: This analogy is wrong. Why? The house owner has form, touch and strength, and so can build a house. The self you speak of has no form and no touch, and so has no strength to make anything; having no strength of making itself, it also cannot make another act. If in the world there were a single dharma without form and without touch that could accomplish something, one could believe and know that there is a doer. But this is wrong. If the self were the doer, it should not itself make suffering. If it is able to remember, things that are desirable and enjoyable should not be forgotten. If the self did not make suffering but suffering arises stubbornly, then everything else should arise of itself and not be made by me. If the seer is the self, the eye can see form, and the eye should be the self. If the eye sees yet is not the self, this contradicts what was said earlier that the seer is the self. If the seer is the self, the self should not be able to hear sounds and the other objects. Why? The eye is the seer and cannot obtain sound and the other objects. So that the self is the seer is wrong. If you say that, like a grass-cutter using a sickle to cut grass, I also use hands and so on to accomplish things, this is wrong. Why? Now apart from the sickle there is a separate grass-cutter, but apart from the body, mind and faculties there is no separate doer. If you say that though the doer cannot be obtained among the eyes, ears and so on, there is still a doer, then the daughter of a barren woman could also accomplish things, and so all the faculties would be without self. If you say that the right eye sees a thing and the left eye knows it, one should know there is a separate seer. This is wrong. Now what the right hand has practiced the left hand cannot do, so there is no separate doer. If there were a separate doer, what the right hand has practiced the left hand should also be able to do, yet in truth it cannot, so there is all the more no doer. Moreover, those who hold that there is a self say: seeing another eat fruit and saliva flowing from one's mouth is a characteristic of the self. This is wrong. Why? This is the power of memory, not the power of a self. This is itself a cause for refuting the self. A person is ashamed among others when saliva flows, and the saliva flows stubbornly, beyond his control; one should know there is no self. Further, there is the fault of inversion. Father in the former life and son in this life, the self of this father and son is one, only the body differs. Like going from one house to another, the father is still the father and does not differ because of entering a different house. If there were a self, these two people should be one, and then there would be a great fault. If you say there is no self and the continuity of the five aggregates also has this fault, this is wrong. Why? Though the five aggregates continue, sometimes they have use and sometimes no use, like grape juice which one who keeps the precepts should drink, grape wine which should not be drunk, and if it turns to vinegar it may be drunk again. The continuity of the five aggregates is likewise, with some use and some none; if there were a single self throughout, there would be this fault. The continuity of the five aggregates has no such fault; only when the five aggregates combine is the provisional name 'self' given, with nothing fixed. Like rafters and beams combining to make a house, and apart from rafters and beams there is no separate house. So the five aggregates combine to make a self, and apart from the five aggregates there is truly no other self, so the self has only a provisional name and nothing fixed or real. What you said earlier, that apart from grasping there is a separate grasper and that grasping is used to distinguish whether the grasper is a god or human, all of this is wrong. One should know there is only grasping and no separate grasper; if one says there is a self apart from grasping, this is wrong.
若離受有我，云何可得說是我相？若無相可說，則離受無我。若謂離身無我但身是我，是亦不然。何以故？身有生滅相，我則不爾。復次云何以受即名受者？若謂離受有受者，是亦不然。若不受五陰而有受者，應離五陰別有受者。眼等根可得，而實不可得，是故我不離受、不即是受，亦非無受、亦復非無，此是定義。是故當知，過去世有我者，是事不然。何以故？
If there were a self apart from grasping, how could one say this is a characteristic of self? If there is no characteristic that can be spoken of, then apart from grasping there is no self. If you say that apart from the body there is no self and only the body is the self, this too is wrong. Why? The body has the characteristics of arising and ceasing, while the self does not. Moreover, how can grasping itself be called the grasper? If you say that apart from grasping there is a grasper, this too is wrong. If there is a grasper who does not grasp the five aggregates, there should be a grasper separate from the five aggregates. The eyes and other faculties can be obtained, yet this is truly not found, so the self is neither apart from grasping nor identical with grasping, neither without grasping nor non-existent; this is the settled meaning. So one should know that it is not right that there was a self in past lives. Why?
「過去我不作，是事則不然；
"That the past self did not make it is not right;
過去世中我，異今亦不然。
that the self of past lives differs from the present is also not right.
若謂有異者，離彼應有今，
If one says there is a difference, apart from that one the present should exist,
我住過去世，而今我自生。
the self stays in the past life, and the present self arises by itself.
如是則斷滅，失於業果報，
Then there would be annihilation and the retribution of karma would be lost,
彼作而此受，有如是等過。
one person would make it and another receive it, with such various faults.
先無而今有，此中亦有過，
Not existing before and existing now has faults within it too,
我則是作法，亦為是無因。」
the self would become a made dharma and would also become without cause."
過去世中我不作今我，是事不然。何以故？過去世中我與今我不異。若今我與過去世我異者，應離彼我而有今我，又過去世我亦應住彼，此身自更生。若爾者，即墮斷邊，失諸業果報。又彼人作罪，此人受報。有如是等無量過。又是我應先無而今有，是亦有過。我則是作法，亦是無因生。是故過去我不作今我，是事不然。復次：
That the self of past lives is not made into the present self is wrong. Why? The self of past lives and the present self have no difference. If the present self differs from the self of past lives, then apart from that self there would be the present self, and the self of past lives would also dwell there, and this body would arise again by itself. If so, one falls into the extreme of annihilation and loses the retribution of all karma. Moreover, one person makes the sin and another receives the retribution. There would be such countless faults. Moreover, this self would not exist before and exist now, which also has a fault. The self would become a made dharma and also be born without cause. So it is wrong that the past self is not made into the present self. Moreover:
「如過去世中，有我無我見，
"Like the views that in past lives there is a self or no self,