Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
問曰：六種各有定相，有定相故則有六種。
The questioner says: Each of the six elements has a definite mark, and because they have definite marks, there are six elements.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「空相未有時，則無虛空法；
"Before the mark of space exists, there is no dharma of space;
若先有虛空，即為是無相。」
if space existed beforehand, it would be without mark."
若未有虛空相先有虛空法者，虛空則無相。何以故？無色處名虛空相。色是作法無常，若色未生，未生則無滅，爾時無虛空相。因色故有無色處，無色處名虛空相。
If there is not yet a mark of space but already the dharma of space, then space is without mark. Why? A place without form is called the mark of space. Form is a made dharma and impermanent; if form has not yet arisen, then since it has not arisen there is no ceasing, and at that time there is also no mark of space. Because there is form, there is a place without form; only a place without form is called the mark of space.
問曰：若無相有虛空，有何咎？
The questioner says: If there is space without a mark, what is the fault?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「是無相之法，一切處無有；
"This dharma without mark does not exist anywhere;
於無相法中，相則無所相。」
within a dharma without mark, a mark has no object to mark."
若於常無常法中，求無相法不可得。如論者言，是有是無，云何知各有相？故生住滅是有為相，無生住滅是無為相。虛空若無相，則無虛空。若謂先無相、後相來相者，是亦不然。若先無相，則無法可相。何以故？
Whether in permanent dharmas or impermanent dharmas, a dharma without a mark cannot be found by seeking. When debaters say "this is being, this is non-being," by what do they know that each has its own mark? So arising, abiding and ceasing are the marks of the conditioned, and non-arising, non-abiding and non-ceasing are the marks of the unconditioned. If space has no mark, there is no space. If one says that earlier it had no mark and later a mark comes to mark it, this is also wrong. If earlier it had no mark, there is no dharma to be marked. Why?
「有相無相中，相則無所住；
"In what has a mark, and in what has no mark, a mark has no place to dwell;
離有相無相，餘處亦不住。」
apart from what has a mark and what has no mark, there is no other place for it to dwell."
如有峰有角、尾端有毛、頸下垂𩑶，是名牛相。若離是相則無牛。若無牛，是諸相無所住。是故說於無相法中相則無所相。有相中相亦不住，先有相故。如水相中火相不住，先有自相故。復次若無相中相住者，則為無因，無因名為無法而有相。相、可相、常相，因待故。離有相無相法，更無第三處可相。是故偈中說「離有相無相，餘處亦不住。」復次：
For example, having a hump, horns, hair at the end of the tail and a dewlap hanging below the neck is called the mark of an ox. If apart from these marks, there is no ox. If there is no ox, these marks have no place to dwell. So it is said: within a dharma without mark, a mark has no object to mark. In what has a mark, a mark cannot dwell either, because there was already a mark beforehand. Just as in the mark of water the mark of fire cannot dwell, because it already had its own mark beforehand. Furthermore, if a mark dwelled in what has no mark, that would be causeless; what is called causeless is a mark without a dharma. Mark and the marked are always mutually dependent. Apart from dharmas with a mark and without a mark, there is no third place to be marked. So the verse says: "Apart from what has a mark and what has no mark, there is no other place for it to dwell." Furthermore:
「相法無有故，可相法亦無；
"If the dharma of mark does not exist, the dharma of the marked also does not exist;
可相法無故，相法亦復無。」
if the dharma of the marked does not exist, the dharma of mark also does not exist."
相無所住故，則無可相法；可相法無故，相法亦無。何以故？因相有可相，因可相有相，共相因待故。
If a mark has no place to dwell, there is no dharma to be marked; if the dharma to be marked does not exist, the dharma of mark also does not exist. Why? Because the marked exists by relying on mark, and mark exists by relying on the marked, each depending on the other.
「是故今無相，亦無有可相；
"So now there is no mark and also no marked;
離相可相已，更亦無有物。」
apart from mark and the marked, there is nothing else."
於因緣中本末推求，相、可相決定不可得。是二不可得故，一切法皆無。一切法皆攝在相、可相二法中，或相為可相、或可相為相。如火以煙為相，煙亦復以火為相。
In dependent origination, seeking from root to end, mark and the marked cannot definitely be found. When these two cannot be found, all dharmas do not exist. All dharmas are contained in these two dharmas of mark and the marked: sometimes the mark serves as the marked, and sometimes the marked serves as the mark. Just as fire has smoke as its mark, and smoke in turn has fire as its mark.
問曰：若無有有，應當有無。
The questioner says: If there is no "being," there should be "non-being."
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若使無有有，云何當有無？
"If even "being" does not exist, how can there be "non-being"?
有無既已無，知有無者誰？」
Since being and non-being both do not exist, who is the one who knows being and non-being?"
凡物若自壞、若為他壞，名為無。無不自有，從有而有。是故言「若使無有有，云何當有無？」眼見耳聞尚不可得，何況無物。
All things either destroy themselves or are destroyed by others, and this is called non-being. Non-being does not exist by itself, but exists only from being. So it is said: "If even 'being' does not exist, how can there be 'non-being'?" What is seen with the eye and heard with the ear cannot even be found, how much less what does not exist.
問曰：以無有有故無亦無，應當有知有無者。
The questioner says: Because there is no "being," there is also no "non-being," so there should be one who knows being and non-being.
答曰：若有知者，應在有中、應在無中？有無既破，知者亦同破。
The answerer says: If there is a knower, should he fall within being or within non-being? Since being and non-being have been refuted, the knower is also refuted together with them.
「是故知虛空，非有亦非無，
"So one should know that space is neither being nor non-being,
非相非可相，餘五同虛空。」
neither mark nor the marked, and the other five are like space."
如虛空種種求相不可得，餘五種亦如是。
Just as space cannot be found by seeking its marks in any way, so too the other five.
問曰
The questioner says:
虛空不在初、不在後。何以先破？
Space is neither the first nor the last. Why refute it first?
答曰：地、水、火、風眾緣和合，故易破。識以苦樂因故知無常變異，故易破。虛空無如是相，但凡夫悕望為有，是故先破。復次虛空能持四大，四大因緣有識，是故先破根本，餘者自破。
The answerer says: Earth, water, fire and wind are combinations of many conditions, so they are easy to refute. Consciousness, being the cause of pain and pleasure, can be known to be impermanent and changing, so it is easy to refute. Space has no marks of this kind, and it is only that ordinary people hope it to exist, so it is refuted first. Furthermore, space supports the four great elements, and consciousness arises from the conditions of the four great elements, so refuting the root first, the rest are refuted of themselves.
問曰：世間人盡見諸法是有是無，汝何以獨與世間相違，言無所見？
The questioner says: All people of the world see that dharmas exist or do not exist; why do you alone go against the world and say that nothing is seen?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「淺智見諸法，若有若無相，
"The shallow wisdom that sees dharmas either falls into the mark of being or falls into the mark of non-being,
是則不能見，滅見安隱法。」
and so cannot see the peaceful dharma where all views are extinguished."
若人未得道，不見諸法實相，愛見因緣故種種戲論。見法生時謂之為有，取相言有；見法滅時謂之為斷，取相言無。智者見諸法生即滅無見，見諸法滅即滅有見，是故於一切法雖有所見，皆如幻如夢，乃至無漏道見尚滅，何況餘見。是故若不見滅、見安隱法者，則見有見無。
If a person has not yet attained the Way, he cannot see the true mark of dharmas, and because of the conditions of love and views gives rise to many kinds of conceptual play. Seeing a dharma arise, he says it exists, and takes the mark and says there is being; seeing a dharma cease, he says it is cut off, and takes the mark and says there is non-being. The wise, seeing dharmas arise, at once extinguish the view of non-being; seeing dharmas cease, at once extinguish the view of being. So although he has views of all dharmas, they are all like illusions and dreams; even the view of the undefiled path must be extinguished, how much more other views. So if one cannot see the peaceful dharma where all views are extinguished, one will see being and see non-being.
中論觀染染者品第六(十偈)
The Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 6: Examination of Defilement and the Defiled (ten verses)
問曰：經說貪欲、瞋恚、愚痴是世間根本。貪欲有種種名，初名愛、次名著、次名染、次名婬欲、次名貪欲，有如是等名字。此是結使，依止眾生眾生名染者，貪欲名染法。有染法、染者故，則有貪欲。餘二亦如是，有瞋則有瞋者、有痴則有痴者。以此三毒因緣起三業，三業因緣起三界，是故有一切法。
The questioner says: The sutras say that greed, hatred and delusion are the root of the world. Greed has many names: at first it is called love, next attachment, next defilement, next lust, next craving, and so on. These are fetters, which depend on beings; the being is called the defiled one, and craving is called the dharma of defilement. Because there is a dharma of defilement and a defiled one, there is craving. The other two are likewise: where there is hatred there is one who hates, and where there is delusion there is one who is deluded. By the conditions of these three poisons the three karmas of body, speech and mind arise, and by the conditions of the three karmas the three realms arise, and so all dharmas exist.
答曰：經雖說有三毒名字，求實不可得。何以故？
The answerer says: Although the sutras speak of the names of the three poisons, seeking their reality they cannot be found. Why?
「若離於染法，先自有染者，
"If apart from the dharma of defilement there already was a defiled one beforehand,
因是染欲者，應生於染法；
then relying on this one who has craving, defilement should arise;
若無有染者，云何當有染？
if there is no defiled one, how can there be defilement?
若有若無染，染者亦如是。」
Whether there is defilement or no defilement, the defiled one is likewise."
若先定有染者，則不更須染，染者先已染故。若先定無染者，亦復不應起染，要當先有染者然後起染。若先無染者，則無受染者。染法亦如是，若先離人定有染法，此則無因，云何得起？似如無薪火。若先定無染法則無有染者，是故偈中說「若有若無染，染者亦如是。」
If a defiled one definitely existed beforehand, there would be no need for defilement, because the defiled one had already been defiled beforehand. If a defiled one definitely did not exist beforehand, defilement should not arise either, for there should first be a defiled one and only then defilement arises. If there is no defiled one beforehand, there is no one to receive defilement. The dharma of defilement is likewise: if apart from the person there definitely were a dharma of defilement beforehand, it would have no cause, so how could it arise? It would be like fire without firewood. If there definitely were no dharma of defilement beforehand, there would also be no defiled one. So the verse says: "Whether there is defilement or no defilement, the defiled one is likewise."
問曰：若染法、染者先後相待生，是事不可得者。若一時生，有何咎？答曰：
The questioner says: If the dharma of defilement and the defiled one arise in dependence on each other in sequence, this cannot be found; if they arise simultaneously, what is the fault? The answerer says:
「染者及染法，俱成則不然；
"The defiled one and the dharma of defilement being established simultaneously is wrong;
染者染法俱，則無有相待。」
if the defiled one and the dharma of defilement are simultaneous, there is no mutual dependence."
若染法、染者一時成，則不相待，不因染者有染法。不因染法有染者，是二應常，已無因成故。若常則多過，無有解脫法。復次今當以一異法破染法、染者。何以故？
If the dharma of defilement and the defiled one are established simultaneously, they do not depend on each other: it is not that the dharma of defilement exists by relying on the defiled one, nor that the defiled one exists by relying on the dharma of defilement, and these two would have to be permanent, because they are established without a cause. If they are permanent, the faults are many, and there would be no dharma of liberation. Furthermore, now the dharma of defilement and the defiled one are to be refuted by way of one and different. Why?
「染者染法一，一法雲何合？
"If the defiled one and the dharma of defilement are one, how can one dharma be united?
染者染法異，異法雲何合？」
If the defiled one and the dharma of defilement are different, how can different dharmas be united?"
染法、染者，若以一法合、若以異法合。若一則無合。何以故？一法雲何自合？如指端不能自觸。若以異法合，是亦不可。何以故？以異成故。若各成竟，不須復合，雖合猶異。復次一異俱不可。何以故？
The dharma of defilement and the defiled one are united either as one or as different. If they are one, there is no union. Why? How can one dharma unite with itself? Just as a fingertip cannot touch itself. If they are united as different, this also does not work. Why? Because each has already been established by itself. If each has been established completely by itself, there is no need to unite; even if they unite, they are still different. Furthermore, neither one nor different works. Why?
「若一有合者，離伴應有合；
"If being one there were union, apart from its companion there should be union;
若異有合者，離伴亦應合。」
if being different there were union, apart from its companion there should be union."
若染、染者一，強名為合者，應離餘因緣而有染、染者。復次若一，亦不應有染、染者二名，染是法、染者是人。若人法為一，是則大亂。若染、染者各異而言合者，則不須餘因緣而有合。若異而合者，雖遠亦應合。
If defilement and the defiled one are one and one grudgingly calls it union, then apart from other conditions there should be defilement and the defiled one. Furthermore, if they are one, there should not be two names, defilement and the defiled one, since defilement is a dharma and the defiled one is a person. If person and dharma are one, there would be great confusion. If defilement and the defiled one are each different yet one speaks of union, then without other conditions there would be union. If different things unite, however far apart they are they should unite.
問曰：一不合，可爾；眼見異法共合。
The questioner says: That the one cannot unite is acceptable; the eyes see different dharmas united together.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若異而有合，染染者何事？
"If different things have union, what is accomplished by defilement and the defiled one?
是二相先異，然後說合相。」
These two marks were already different beforehand, and only then does one speak of the mark of union."
若染、染者先有決定異相而後合者，是則不合。何以故？是二相先已異，而後強說合。復次：
If defilement and the defiled one already had definite marks of difference beforehand and only then united, this is not union. Why? These two marks were already different beforehand, and only afterward is union grudgingly spoken of. Furthermore: