Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
「火喻則不能，成於眼見法；
"The analogy of fire cannot establish the dharma of the eye's seeing;
去未去去時，已總答是事。」
already gone, not yet gone and going, this matter has already been answered in general."
汝雖作火喻，不能成眼見法。是事〈去來品〉中已答，如已去中無去、未去中無去、去時中無去；如已燒、未燒、燒時俱無有燒，如是已見、未見、見時俱無見相。復次：
Although you make the analogy of fire, it cannot establish the dharma of the eye's seeing. This matter has been answered in the Chapter on Going and Coming: just as in what has already gone there is no going, in what has not yet gone there is no going, and in the going-time there is no going; likewise, in what has already burned, not yet burned and is burning there is no burning, and in what has already seen, not yet seen and is seeing there is no mark of seeing. Furthermore:
「見若未見時，則不名為見；
"If seeing is still at the time of not yet seeing, it is not called seeing;
而言見能見，是事則不然。」
yet to say that seeing can see is wrong."
眼未對色則不能見，爾時不名為見，因對色名為見。是故偈中說「未見時無見」，云何以見能見？復次二處俱無見法。何以故？
When the eye has not yet faced form, it cannot see, and at that time it is not called seeing; only because it faces form is it called seeing. So the verse says "at the time of not yet seeing there is no seeing," so how can one see by relying on "seeing"? Furthermore, in both places there is no dharma of seeing. Why?
「見不能有見，非見亦不見；
"Seeing cannot see, and non-seeing also cannot see;
若已破於見，則為破見者。」
if seeing has already been refuted, the seer has also been refuted."
見不能見，先已說過故。非見亦不見，無見相故。若無見相，云何能見？見法無故，見者亦無。何以故？若離見有見者，無眼者亦應以餘情見。若以見見，則見中有見相。見者無見相，是故偈中說「若已破於見，則為破見者。」復次：
That seeing cannot see has been explained above. Non-seeing also cannot see, because it has no mark of seeing. If there is no mark of seeing, how can it see? If the dharma of seeing does not exist, the seer also does not exist. Why? If apart from seeing there were a seer, a person without eyes should be able to see with the other faculties. If seeing is done by relying on seeing, seeing should have the mark of seeing within it. The seer does not have the mark of seeing, so the verse says: "If seeing has already been refuted, the seer has also been refuted." Furthermore:
「離見不離見，見者不可得；
"Whether apart from seeing or not apart from seeing, the seer cannot be found;
以無見者故，何有見可見？」
since there is no seer, where are seeing and the seen?"
若有見，見者則不成；若無見，見者亦不成。見者無故，云何有見可見？若無見者，誰能用見法分別外色？是故偈中說「以無見者故，何有見可見？」復次：
If there is seeing, the seer cannot be established; if there is no seeing, the seer also cannot be established. If the seer does not exist, how can there be seeing and the seen? If there is no seer, who could use the dharma of seeing to discriminate external forms? So the verse says: "Since there is no seer, where are seeing and the seen?" Furthermore:
「見可見無故，識等四法無；
"Seeing and the seen being absent, the four dharmas of consciousness and so on are also absent;
四取等諸緣，云何當得有？」
how can the four graspings and the many other conditions still exist?"
見、可見法無故，識、觸、受、愛四法皆無。以無愛等故，四取等十二因緣分亦無。復次：
When the dharmas of seeing and the seen do not exist, the four dharmas of consciousness, contact, feeling and craving all do not exist. Since there is no craving and so on, the four graspings and the other links of the twelve-link dependent origination also do not exist. Furthermore:
「耳鼻舌身意，聲及聞者等，
"Ear, nose, tongue, body and mind, sound and the hearer and so on,
當知如是義，皆同於上說。」
one should know that these meanings are all the same as what was said above."
如見、可見法空，屬眾緣故無決定。餘耳等五情聲等五塵，當知亦同見可見法，義同故不別說。
As the dharmas of seeing and the seen are empty, belonging to many conditions and so without a fixed nature, so too for the other five faculties such as the ear and the five objects such as sound, which should be known to be the same as the dharmas of seeing and the seen; since the principle is the same, it is not stated separately.
中論觀五陰品第四(九偈)
The Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 4: Examination of the Five Aggregates (nine verses)
問曰：經說有五陰。是事云何？
The questioner says: The sutras speak of five aggregates. What about this?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若離於色因，色則不可得；
"If apart from the cause of form, form cannot be found;
若當離於色，色因不可得。」
if apart from form, the cause of form cannot be found."
色因者，如布因縷，除縷則無布，除布則無縷。布如色，縷如因。
What is called the cause of form is like the cause of cloth being the thread: remove the thread and there is no cloth, remove the cloth and there is no thread. Cloth is like form, and thread is like the cause.
問曰：若離色因有色，有何過？
The questioner says: If apart from the cause of form there is still form, what is the fault?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「離色因有色，是色則無因；
"If apart from the cause of form there is still form, this form is without cause;
無因而有法，是事則不然。」
to have a dharma without a cause is wrong."
如離縷有布，布則無因。無因而有法，世間所無有。
It is like there being cloth apart from thread, in which case the cloth would be without cause. To have a dharma without a cause is something that does not exist in the world.
問曰：佛法、外道法、世間法中皆有無因法。佛法有三無為，無為常故無因。外道法中虛空、時、方、神、微塵、涅槃等。世間法虛空、時、方等。是三法無處不有故名為常，常故無因。汝何以說無因法世間所無？
The questioner says: In the Buddha's teaching, in the teachings of outsiders and in worldly teachings there are dharmas without cause. In the Buddha's teaching there are three unconditioned dharmas, and the unconditioned is permanent and so without cause. In the outsiders' teachings there are space, time, direction, the self, atoms, nirvana and so on. In worldly teachings there are space, time, direction and so on. These three dharmas are present everywhere and so are called permanent; being permanent, they are without cause. Why do you say that dharmas without cause do not exist in the world?
答曰：此無因法但有言說，思惟分別則皆無。若法從因緣有，不應言無因。若無因緣，則如我說。
The answerer says: These dharmas without cause exist only in words, and once examined and discriminated in thought, they all disappear. If a dharma exists from causes and conditions, one should not call it causeless. If there are no causes and conditions, then it is just as I said.
問曰：有二種因：一者作因、二者言說因。是無因法無作因，但有言說因，令人知故。
The questioner says: There are two kinds of cause: one is the cause of making, the other is the cause of being spoken of. These dharmas without cause do not have a cause of making, only a cause of being spoken of, so that people may know them.
答曰：雖有言說因，是事不然。虛空如六種中破，餘事後當破。復次現事尚皆可破，何況微塵等不可見法？是故說無因法世間所無。
The answerer says: Although there is a cause of being spoken of, this is still wrong. Space is refuted as in the Chapter on the Six Elements, and the other matters will be refuted later. Furthermore, even present things can be refuted, how much more atoms and other unseen dharmas? So I say that dharmas without cause do not exist in the world.
問曰：若離色有色因，有何過？
The questioner says: If apart from form there is still a cause of form, what is the fault?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若離色有因，則是無果因；
"If apart from form there is still a cause, that would be a cause without a fruit;
若言無果因，則無有是處。」
to say there is a cause without a fruit is without any reason."
若除色果但有色因者，即是無果因。
If one removes form, the fruit, and leaves only the cause of form, that would be a cause without a fruit.
問曰：若無果有因，有何咎？
The questioner says: If there is a cause without a fruit, what is the fault?
答曰：無果有因，世間所無。何以故？以果故名為因。若無果，云何名因？復次若因中無果者，物何以不從非因生？是事如〈破因緣品〉中說。是故無有無果因。復次：
The answerer says: A cause without a fruit does not exist in the world. Why? Because only when there is a fruit is it called a cause. If there is no fruit, how can it be called a cause? Furthermore, if there is no fruit within the cause, why are things not born from non-causes? This matter is as stated in the Chapter on the Examination of Conditions. So there is no "cause without a fruit." Furthermore:
「若已有色者，則不用色因；
"If form already exists, there is no need for a cause of form;
若無有色者，亦不用色因。」
if form does not exist, there is also no need for a cause of form."
二處有色因，是則不然。若先因中有色，不名為色因；若先因中無色，亦不名為色因。
For both cases to have a cause of form is wrong. If form already existed within the cause beforehand, it would not be called the cause of form; if form did not exist within the cause beforehand, it would also not be called the cause of form.
問曰：若二處俱不然，但有無因色，有何咎？
The questioner says: If both cases are wrong and only form without a cause remains, what is the fault?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「無因而有色，是事終不然。
"To have form without a cause is in the end not right.
是故有智者，不應分別色。」
So the wise should not discriminate form."
若因中有果、因中無果，此事尚不可得，何況無因有色。是故言「無因而有色，是事終不然。是故有智者，不應分別色。」分別名凡夫，以無明愛染貪著色，然後以邪見生分別戲論，說因中有果、無果等。今此中求色不可得，是故智者不應分別。復次：
Whether there is a fruit within the cause or no fruit within the cause cannot even be found by seeking, how much less form without a cause. So it says: "To have form without a cause is in the end not right. So the wise should not discriminate form." What is called discrimination refers to ordinary people: because of ignorance and craving they cling to form, and then with wrong views give rise to discriminating conceptual play, saying that there is a fruit within the cause, or no fruit, and so on. Now, seeking form here, one cannot find it, so the wise should not discriminate. Furthermore:
「若果似於因，是事則不然；
"If the fruit resembles the cause, this is wrong;
果若不似因，是事亦不然。」
if the fruit does not resemble the cause, this is also wrong."
若果與因相似，是事不然，因細果麁故。因果色力等各異，如布似縷則不名布，縷多布一故。不得言因果相似。若因果不相似，是亦不然。如麻縷不成絹，麁縷無出細布，是故不得言因果不相似。二義不然，故無色、無色因。
If the fruit resembles the cause, this is wrong, because the cause is fine and the fruit is coarse. Cause and fruit differ from each other in color, strength and so on; if cloth resembled thread it would not be called cloth, because thread is many and cloth is one. One cannot say that cause and fruit resemble each other. If cause and fruit do not resemble each other, this is also wrong. For example hemp thread cannot be woven into silk, and coarse thread cannot produce fine cloth, so one cannot say that cause and fruit do not resemble each other. Both principles are wrong, so there is no form and also no cause of form.
「受陰及想陰、行陰識陰等，
"The aggregates of feeling, perception, volition and consciousness and the rest,
其餘一切法，皆同於色陰。」
and all other dharmas, are all like the aggregate of form."
四陰及一切法，亦應如是思惟破。又今造論者欲讚美空義故而說偈：
The other four aggregates and all dharmas should likewise be refuted by thinking in this way. Furthermore, the author of the treatise, in order to praise the principle of emptiness, adds another verse:
「若人有問者，離空而欲答，
"If someone comes to ask, and one wishes to answer apart from emptiness,
是則不成答，俱同於彼疑。
this cannot make an answer, and both sides fall into the same doubt.
若人有難問，離空說其過，
If someone comes to object, and apart from emptiness speaks of the other's faults,
是不成難問，俱同於彼疑。」
this cannot make an objection, and both sides fall into the same doubt."
若人論議時各有所執，離於空義而有問答者，皆不成問答，俱亦同疑。如人言：「瓶是無常。」問者言：「何以故無常？」答言：「從無常因生故。」此不名答。何以故？因緣中亦疑，不知為常、為無常？是為同彼所疑。問者若欲說其過，不依於空而說諸法無常，則不名問難。何以故？汝因無常破我常，我亦因常破汝無常。若實無常則無業報，眼耳等諸法念念滅，亦無有分別。有如是等過，皆不成問難，同彼所疑。若依空破常者，則無有過。何以故？此人不取空相故。是故若欲問答，尚應依於空法，何況欲求離苦寂滅相者。
When people debate, each holds to something; if apart from the principle of emptiness there are questions and answers, none can be made into a question or answer, and both sides also fall into the same doubt. For example, someone says: "A pot is impermanent." The questioner says: "Why is it impermanent?" The answerer says: "Because it arises from impermanent causes." This is not called an answer. Why? The causes and conditions are equally doubtful, and one does not know whether they are permanent or impermanent. This is the same as what the other side doubts. If a questioner wishes to speak of the other's faults and, not relying on emptiness, says that all dharmas are impermanent, this is also not called an objection. Why? You use impermanence to refute my permanence, and I also use permanence to refute your impermanence. If things were truly impermanent, there would be no karmic retribution, and the eye, ear and other dharmas would perish moment by moment, and there would be no discrimination. With faults of this kind, none can make an objection, being the same as what the other side doubts. If one relies on emptiness to refute permanence, there is no fault. Why? This person does not take hold of the mark of emptiness. So even for questions and answers one must rely on the dharma of emptiness, how much more those who wish to leave suffering and attain the mark of quiescence.
中論觀六種品第五(八偈)
The Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 5: Examination of the Six Elements (eight verses)