Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
一謂去者去，二謂去法去。」
one in which the goer goes, and one in which the dharma of going goes."
若言去者用去法，則有二過，於一去者中而有二去：一以去法成去者、二以去者成去法。去者成已然後用去法，是事不然。是故先三時中謂定有去者用去法，是事不然。復次：
If one says the goer uses the dharma of going, there are two faults, in that within one goer there are two kinds of going: first, the goer is established by the dharma of going, and second, the dharma of going is established by the goer. That the goer is first established and then uses the dharma of going is wrong. So the earlier statement that in the three times there must be a goer who uses the dharma of going is wrong. Furthermore:
「若謂去者去，是人則有咎，
"If one says the goer goes, this person has a fault,
離去有去者，說去者有去。」
for it would mean there is a goer apart from going, yet it says the goer has going."
若人說去者能用去法，是人則有咎，離去法有去者。何以故？說去者用去法，是為先有去者後有去法。是事不然，是故三時中無有去者。復次，若決定有去、有去者，應有初發。而於三時中求發不可得。何以故？
If someone says the goer can use the dharma of going, this person has a fault, equivalent to there being a goer apart from the dharma of going. Why? To say the goer uses the dharma of going means the goer exists first and the dharma of going afterward. This is wrong, so in the three times there is no goer. Furthermore, if going and a goer definitely existed, there should be an initial start. But seeking this start in the three times, none can be found. Why?
「已去中無發，未去中無發，
"In what has already gone there is no start, in what has not yet gone there is no start,
去時中無發，何處當有發？」
and in the going-time too there is no start, so where can there be a start?"
何以故三時中無發？
Why is there no start in any of the three times?
「未發無去時，亦無有已去，
"If there is not yet a start, there is no going-time, and also no already-gone,
是二應有發，未去何有發？
the start should be in these two places, but in what has not yet gone, where is there a start?
無去無未去，亦復無去時，
There is no going, nor not-yet-going, and still less a going-time,
一切無有發，何故而分別？」
all is without a start, so what use is it to distinguish these?"
若人未發則無去時亦無已去；若有發當在二處：去時、已去中。二俱不然，未去時未有發故。未去中何有發？發無故無去，無去故無去者，何得有已去、未去、去時。
If a person has not yet started, then there is neither a going-time nor an already-gone; if there is a start, it should fall in two places: the going-time, and the already-gone. Both places are wrong, because at the time of not yet going there is not yet a start. In what has not yet gone, where is there a start? If there is no start, there is no going; if there is no going, there is no goer, so where are the already-gone, the not-yet-gone and the going-time?
問曰：若無去、無去者，應有住、住者。答曰：
The questioner says: If there is no going and no goer, there should be staying and a stayer. The answerer says:
「去者則不住，不去者不住，
"The goer does not stay, the non-goer also does not stay,
離去不去者，何有第三住？」
apart from the goer and the non-goer, where is there a third kind that stays?"
若有住、有住者，應去者住、若不去者住。若離此二，應有第三住。是事不然。去者不住，去未息故，與去相違名為住。不去者亦不住。何以故？因去法滅故有住，無去則無住。離去者不去者，更無第三住者。若有第三住者，即在去者、不去者中。以是故，不得言去者住。復次：
If there is staying and a stayer, then the goer should be the one who stays, or the non-goer should be the one who stays. If apart from these two there is a third kind of staying, this is wrong. The goer does not stay, because going has not stopped, and only what is contrary to going is called staying. The non-goer also does not stay. Why? Staying exists only when the dharma of going has ceased; without going there is no staying. Apart from the goer and the non-goer, there is no third kind of one who stays. If there were a third kind of stayer, it would also fall within the goer or the non-goer. Therefore, one cannot say that the goer stays. Furthermore:
「去者若當住，云何有此義？
"If the goer were to stay, how can this statement stand?
若當離於去，去者不可得。」
If apart from going, the goer cannot be found."
汝謂去者住。是事不然。何以故。離去法，去者不可得。若去者在去相，云何當有住？去住相違故。復次：
You say the goer stays. This is wrong. Why? Apart from the dharma of going, the goer cannot be found. If the goer is precisely in the mark of going, how can there be staying? Going and staying are contrary. Furthermore:
「去未去無住，去時亦無住，
"In what has gone or not yet gone there is no staying, and in the going-time there is also no staying,
所有行止法，皆同於去義。」
and all the dharmas of moving and stopping follow the same principle as going."
若謂去者住，是人應在去時、已去、未去中住。三處皆無住，是故汝言去者有住，是則不然。如破去法、住法，行、止亦如是。行者，如從穀子相續至芽莖葉等。止者，穀子滅故芽莖葉滅。相續故名行，斷故名止。又如無明緣諸行乃至老死是名行，無明滅故諸行等滅是名止。
If one says the goer stays, this person should stay in the going-time, in what has gone, or in what has not yet gone. In all three places there is no staying, so your saying that the goer has staying is wrong. Just as the dharmas of going and staying are refuted, so moving and stopping are the same. What is called moving is like the continuity from grain to sprout, stalk, leaf and so on. What is called stopping is when the grain ceases, so the sprout, stalk and leaf cease too. Continuity is called moving, and its being cut off is called stopping. Again, from ignorance conditioning the formations all the way to old age and death is called moving; when ignorance ceases, the formations and so on cease, and this is called stopping.
問曰：汝雖種種門破去去者、住住者，而眼見有去住。
The questioner says: Although you use many approaches to refute going and the goer, staying and the stayer, the eyes clearly see that there is going and staying.
答曰：肉眼所見不可信。若實有去去者，為以一法成？為以二法成？二俱有過。何以故？
The answerer says: What the physical eye sees is not trustworthy. If going and the goer truly exist, are they established by one dharma or by two dharmas? Both have faults. Why?
「去法即去者，是事則不然；
"That the dharma of going is the goer is wrong;
去法異去者，是事亦不然。」
that the dharma of going is different from the goer is also wrong."
若去法、去者一，是則不然，異亦不然。
If the dharma of going and the goer are one, this is wrong; if they are different, this is also wrong.
問曰：一、異有何過？
The questioner says: What are the faults of being one and being different?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若謂於去法，即為是去者；
"If one says the dharma of going is the goer,
作者及作業，是事則為一。
then the agent and the action become one and the same.
若謂於去法，有異於去者；
If one says the dharma of going is different from the goer,
離去者有去，離去有去者。」
then there is going apart from the goer, and a goer apart from going."
如是二俱有過。何以故？若去法即是去者，是則錯亂，破於因緣。因去有去者，因去者有去。又去名為法，去者名為人，人常法無常。若一者，則二俱應常、二俱無常。一中有如是等過。若異者則相違。未有去法應有去者，未有去者應有去法，不相因待，一法滅應一法在。異中有如是等過。復次：
In both cases there are faults. Why? If the dharma of going is the goer, then it is confused and destroys dependent origination, because the goer exists by relying on going, and going exists by relying on the goer. Moreover, going is called a dharma and the goer is called a person, and a person is permanent while a dharma is impermanent. If they were one, both should be permanent, or both impermanent. Being one has faults of this kind. If they are different, they contradict each other: going, not yet being a dharma, would already have a goer, and the goer, not yet being a goer, would already have the dharma of going, with no mutual dependence; when one dharma ceases, the other should still remain. Being different has faults of this kind. Furthermore:
「去去者是二，若一異法成，
"Going and the goer, these two, whether established as one or as different,
二門俱不成，云何當有成？」
cannot be established by either door, so how can one speak of establishing them?"
若去者、去法有，若以一法成、若以異法成，二俱不可得；先已說無第三法成。若謂有成，應說因緣。無去無去者，今當更說。
If the goer and the dharma of going exist, whether they are established by one dharma or by different dharmas, neither can be found; as said before, there is no third way of establishing them. If one says there is establishment, one should state the causes and conditions. There is no going and no goer, and now this is to be said again.
「因去知去者，不能用是去；
"By going one knows there is a goer, yet this going cannot be used again;
先無有去法，故無去者去。」
since before there was no dharma of going, there is no 'the goer goes.'"
隨以何去法知去者？是去者不能用是去法。何以故？是去法未有時無有去者，亦無去時、已去、未去。如先有人、有城邑，得有所起。去法、去者則不然，去者因去法成，去法因去者成故。復次：
Whichever dharma of going is used to know that there is a goer, this goer cannot again use this dharma of going. Why? Before this dharma of going existed, there was no goer, and also no going-time, already-gone or not-yet-gone. It is like how, when there are people and towns first, something can arise. But the dharma of going and the goer are not like this, because the goer is established by relying on the dharma of going, and the dharma of going is established by relying on the goer. Furthermore:
「因去知去者，不能用異去，
"By going one knows there is a goer, yet he cannot use another going,
於一去者中，不得二去故。」
because within one goer, two kinds of going cannot be found."
隨以何去法知去者，是去者不能用異去法。何以故？一去者中二去法不可得故。復次：
Whichever dharma of going is used to know that there is a goer, this goer cannot use another dharma of going. Why? Within one goer, two dharmas of going cannot be found. Furthermore:
「決定有去者，不能用三去；
"A goer who definitely exists cannot use the three kinds of going;
不決定去者，亦不用三去。
a goer who is not definite also cannot use the three kinds of going.
去法定不定，去者不用三，
Whether the dharma of going is definite or not, the goer does not use these three,
是故去去者，所去處皆無。」
so going, the goer and the place gone to all do not exist."
決定者，名本實有，不因去法生。去法名身動。三種名未去、已去、去時。若決定有去者，離去法應有去者，不應有住，是故說決定有去者不能用三去。若去者不決定，不決定名本實無，以因去法得名去者，以無去法故不能用三去。因去法故有去者，若先無去法則無去者。云何言不決定去者用三去？如去者，去法亦如是。若先離去者決定有去法，則不因去者有去法，是故去者不能用三去法。若決定無去法，去者何所用？如是思惟觀察，去法、去者、所去處，是法皆相因待。因去法有去者，因去者有去法，因是二法則有可去處，不得言定有、不得言定無，是故決定知，三法虛妄，空無所有，但有假名，如幻如化。
"Definite" means originally truly existing, not arising by relying on the dharma of going. The dharma of going refers to bodily motion. The three refer to not yet gone, already gone and going-time. If a goer definitely exists, then apart from the dharma of going there should already be a goer, and there should be no staying, so it is said that a definitely existing goer cannot use the three kinds of going. If the goer is not definite ("not definite" means originally truly nonexistent, and only by relying on the dharma of going does it get the name "goer"), then since there is no dharma of going, it also cannot use the three kinds of going. The goer exists by relying on the dharma of going; if there was no dharma of going before, there is no goer. How can one say that a goer who is not definite uses the three kinds of going? As with the goer, so with the dharma of going. If before, apart from the goer, there definitely was a dharma of going, then the dharma of going would not exist by relying on the goer, so the goer cannot use the three dharmas of going. If there definitely is no dharma of going, what would the goer use it for? Thinking and observing in this way: the dharma of going, the goer and the place gone to, these dharmas all depend on one another. By relying on the dharma of going there is a goer, by relying on the goer there is a dharma of going, and by relying on these two dharmas there is a place to go to, and one cannot say they definitely exist, nor that they definitely do not exist. So one knows for certain: these three dharmas are false, empty and without anything, only provisional names, like illusions and transformations.
中論觀六情品第三(八偈)
The Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 3: Examination of the Six Faculties (eight verses)
問曰：經中說有六情，所謂：
The questioner says: The sutras speak of six faculties, namely:
「眼耳及鼻舌、身意等六情，
"Eye and ear, and nose and tongue, body and mind, the six faculties,
此眼等六情，行色等六塵。」
these six faculties, the eye and the rest, operate on the six objects of form and the rest."
此中眼為內情、色為外塵，眼能見色，乃至意為內情、法為外塵，意能知法。
Here the eye is the inner faculty and form is the outer object, and the eye can see form; and so on up to the mind being the inner faculty and dharmas the outer object, and the mind can know dharmas.
答曰：無也。何以故？
The answerer says: No. Why?
「是眼則不能，自見其己體；
"This eye cannot see its own substance;
若不能自見，云何見餘物？」
if it cannot see itself, how can it see anything else?"
是眼不能見自體。何以故？如燈能自照亦能照他。眼若是見相，亦應自見亦應見他。而實不爾，是故偈中說「若眼不自見，何能見餘物？」
This eye cannot see its own substance. Why? For example a lamp can illuminate both itself and others. If the eye were truly of the mark of "seeing," it should be able to see both itself and others. But the fact is not so, so the verse says: "If the eye does not see itself, how can it see anything else?"
問曰：眼雖不能自見，而能見他。如火能燒他，不能自燒。
The questioner says: Although the eye cannot see itself, it can see others. It is like fire, which can burn others but cannot burn itself.
答曰：
The answerer says: