Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One

「若染及染者，先各成異相，

"If defilement and the defiled one, beforehand each established marks of difference,

既已成異相，云何而言合？」

since the marks of difference are already established, how can one still speak of union?"

若染、染者先各成別相，汝今何以強說合相？復次：

If defilement and the defiled one beforehand each established separate marks, on what grounds do you now grudgingly speak of the mark of union? Furthermore:

「異相無有成，是故汝欲合；

"The mark of difference is not established, and so you wish for union;

合相竟無成，而復說異相。」

the mark of union is in the end not established, and you speak again of the mark of difference."

汝已染、染者異相不成故，復說合相。合相中有過，染、染者不成。汝為成合相故，復說異相。汝自已為定，而所說不定。何以故？

Because the mark of difference of defilement and the defiled one is not established, you change your words and speak of the mark of union. There is a fault in the mark of union, and defilement and the defiled one are still not established. In order to establish the mark of union, you again speak of the mark of difference. You yourself have taken it as settled, but what you say is not settled. Why?

「異相不成故，合相則不成；

"If the mark of difference is not established, the mark of union is not established;

於何異相中，而欲說合相？」

within which mark of difference do you still wish to speak of the mark of union?"

以此中染、染者異相不成故，合相亦不成。汝於何異相中而欲說合相？復次：

Because here the mark of difference of defilement and the defiled one is not established, the mark of union is also not established. Within which mark of difference do you still wish to speak of the mark of union? Furthermore:

「如是染染者，非合不合成；

"Thus defilement and the defiled one cannot be established by union nor by non-union;

諸法亦如是，非合不合成。」

dharmas are likewise, and cannot be established by union nor by non-union."

如染，恚痴亦如是。如三毒，一切煩惱、一切法亦如是。非先非後、非合非散等，因緣所成。

As with defilement, so with hatred and delusion. As with the three poisons, so with all afflictions and all dharmas. Not before and not after, not united and not scattered, and so on, all are formed by causes and conditions.

龍樹菩薩造梵志青目釋

Verses composed by the Bodhisattva Nagarjuna, commentary by the brahmin Pingala (Qingmu).

姚秦三藏鳩摩羅什譯

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

觀三相品第七(三十五偈)

Chapter 7: Examination of the Three Marks (thirty-five verses)

問曰：經說有為法有三相：生、住、滅。萬物以生法生、以住法住、以滅法滅，是故有諸法。

The questioner says: The sutras say that conditioned dharmas have three marks: arising, abiding and ceasing. Things arise by the dharma of arising, abide by the dharma of abiding, and cease by the dharma of ceasing, and so dharmas exist.

答曰：不爾。何以故？三相無決定故。是三相為是有為能作有為相？為是無為能作有為相？二俱不然。何以故？

The answerer says: It is not so. Why? The three marks have no fixed nature. These three marks, is it the conditioned that can serve as the marks of the conditioned, or the unconditioned that can serve as the marks of the conditioned? Both are wrong. Why?

「若生是有為，則應有三相；

"If arising is conditioned, there should be another three marks;

若生是無為，何名有為相？」

if arising is unconditioned, how can it be called a mark of the conditioned?"

若生是有為，應有三相生住滅。是事不然。何以故？共相違故。相違者，生相應生法、住相應住法、滅相應滅法。若法生時，不應有住、滅相違法。一時則不然，如明闇不俱。以是故，生不應是有為法；住、滅相亦應如是。

If arising is conditioned, it should have three marks: arising, abiding and ceasing. This is wrong. Why? They contradict one another. What is called contradiction: the mark of arising should let a dharma arise, the mark of abiding should let a dharma abide, and the mark of ceasing should let a dharma cease. If a dharma is arising, it should not simultaneously have the contradictory dharmas of abiding and ceasing. This does not work in the same instant, like light and darkness that cannot coexist. Therefore arising should not be a conditioned dharma; the marks of abiding and ceasing should be seen in the same way.

問曰：若生非有為，若是無為，有何咎？

The questioner says: If arising is not conditioned, and is unconditioned, what is the fault?

答曰：若生是無為，云何能為有為法作相。何以故？無為法無性故。因滅有為名無為，是故說不生不滅名無為相，更無自相。是故無法，不能為法作相，如兔角龜毛等不能為法作相。是故生非無為；住、滅亦如是。復次：

The answerer says: If arising is unconditioned, how can it serve as a mark for conditioned dharmas? Why? Unconditioned dharmas have no self-nature. Because it is by the ceasing of the conditioned that something is called unconditioned, non-arising and non-ceasing are called the mark of the unconditioned, and it has no mark of its own. So it has no dharma and cannot serve as a mark for dharmas, just as rabbit horns and turtle hair cannot serve as marks for dharmas. So arising is not unconditioned; abiding and ceasing are likewise. Furthermore:

「三相若聚散，不能有所相；

"Whether the three marks are gathered or scattered, they cannot mark anything;

云何於一處，一時有三相？」

how can the three marks exist in the same place at the same moment?"

是生、住、滅相，若一一能為有為法作相？若和合能與有為法作相？二俱不然。何以故？若謂一一者，於一處中或有有相、或有無相，生時無住、滅，住時無生、滅，滅時無生、住。若和合者，共相違法，云何一時俱？若謂三相更有三相者，是亦不然。何以故？

These marks of arising, abiding and ceasing, can each one serve as a mark of a conditioned dharma, or can they united serve as marks of a conditioned dharma? Both are wrong. Why? If one says each one, then in the same place some would have marks and some would not: when arising there is no abiding or ceasing, when abiding there is no arising or ceasing, when ceasing there is no arising or abiding. If one says united, how can mutually contradictory dharmas all exist at the same moment? If one says the three marks have yet another three marks, this too is wrong. Why?

「若謂生住滅，更有有為相，

“If you say that arising, abiding, and ceasing each further have a conditioned mark,

是即為無窮，無即非有為。」

then it would go on without end; if they do not, they are not conditioned.”

若謂生、住、滅更有有為相，生更有生、有住、有滅。如是三相，復應更有相，若爾則無窮。若更無相，是三相則不名有為法，亦不能為有為法作相。

If arising, abiding, and ceasing each further have a conditioned mark, then arising would still need arising, abiding, and ceasing. Then the three marks would again need marks of their own, and this would go on without end. If there are no further marks, then these three marks are not called conditioned dharmas, and cannot serve as marks for conditioned dharmas.

問曰：汝說三相為無窮。是事不然。生、住、滅雖是有為，而非無窮。何以故？

The questioner says: You say the three marks would go on without end. This is not right. Although arising, abiding, and ceasing are conditioned, they are not endless. Why?

「生生之所生，生於彼本生，

“That which the arising of arising gives rise to is the arising of that primary arising;

本生之所生，還生於生生。」

and that which the primary arising gives rise to turns back and gives rise to that arising of arising.”

法生時通自體七法共生：一法、二生、三住、四滅、五生生、六住住、七滅滅。是七法中，本生除自體，能生六法。生生能生本生，本生能生生生，是故三相雖是有為，而非無窮。

When a dharma arises, seven dharmas arise together, including its own substance: first the dharma, second arising, third abiding, fourth ceasing, fifth the arising of arising, sixth the abiding of abiding, and seventh the ceasing of ceasing. Among these seven dharmas, the primary arising, excepting its own substance, can give rise to the other six. The arising of arising can give rise to the primary arising, and the primary arising can give rise to the arising of arising, so although the three marks are conditioned, they are not endless.

答曰：

The answerer says:

「若謂是生生，能生於本生；

“If you say that this arising of arising can give rise to that primary arising;

生生從本生，何能生本生？」

yet the arising of arising comes from the primary arising, so how can it still give rise to the primary arising?”

若是生生能生本生者，是生生則不名從本生生。何以故？是生生從本生生，云何能生本生。復次：

If this arising of arising can give rise to the primary arising, then this arising of arising should not be said to arise from the primary arising. Why? This arising of arising arises from the primary arising, so how can it still give rise to the primary arising? Furthermore:

「若謂是本生，能生於生生；

“If you say that this primary arising can give rise to that arising of arising;

本生從彼生，何能生生生？」

yet the primary arising comes from that arising, so how can it still give rise to the arising of arising?”

若謂本生能生生生者，是本生不名從生生生。何以故？是本生從生生生，云何能生生生？生生法應生本生。而今生生不能生本生，生生未有自體，何能生本生？是故本生不能生生生。

If you say the primary arising can give rise to the arising of arising, then this primary arising should not be said to arise from the arising of arising. Why? This primary arising arises from the arising of arising, so how can it still give rise to the arising of arising? This dharma, the arising of arising, ought to give rise to the primary arising. But now the arising of arising cannot give rise to the primary arising, since the arising of arising has no substance of its own yet, so how could it give rise to the primary arising? So the primary arising also cannot give rise to the arising of arising.

問曰：是生生生時，非先非後能生本生，但生生生時能生本生。

The questioner says: When this arising of arising is arising, it gives rise to the primary arising neither before nor after, but just at the very time when the arising of arising is in the process of arising.

答曰：不然。何以故？

The answerer says: It is not so. Why?

「若生生生時，能生於本生；

“If the arising of arising, at the time it is arising, can give rise to the primary arising;

生生尚未有，何能生本生？」

since the arising of arising does not yet exist, how can it give rise to the primary arising?”

若謂生生生時能生本生可爾，而實未有，是故生生生時不能生本生。復次：

If you say that the arising of arising, while arising, can give rise to the primary arising, the statement seems possible, but in fact it does not yet exist, so the arising of arising, while arising, cannot give rise to the primary arising. Furthermore:

「若本生生時，能生於生生；

“If the primary arising, at the time it is arising, can give rise to the arising of arising;

本生尚未有，何能生生生？」

since the primary arising does not yet exist, how can it give rise to the arising of arising?”

若謂是本生生時能生生生可爾，而實未有，是故本生生時不能生生生。

If you say that the primary arising, while arising, can give rise to the arising of arising, the statement seems possible, but in fact it does not yet exist, so the primary arising, while arising, cannot give rise to the arising of arising.

問曰：

The questioner says:

「如燈能自照，亦能照於彼；

“Just as a lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate other things;

生法亦如是，自生亦生彼。」

so too the dharma of arising: it arises itself and also gives rise to others.”

如燈入於闇室，照了諸物亦能自照。生亦如是，能生於彼亦能自生。

Like a lamp entering a dark room and illuminating all the various things, it can also illuminate itself. Arising is the same: it can give rise to others, and can also arise by itself.

答曰：不然。何以故？

The answerer says: It is not so. Why?

「燈中自無闇，住處亦無闇，

“Within the lamp itself there is no darkness, and in the place where it is there is no darkness,

破闇乃名照，無闇則無照。」

to destroy darkness is what is called illuminating; where there is no darkness there is no illuminating.”

燈體自無闇，明所及處亦無闇，明闇相違故。破闇故名照，無闇則無照，何得言燈自照亦照彼？

The body of the lamp itself has no darkness, and where its light reaches there is also no darkness, because light and darkness are opposed. To destroy darkness is called illuminating; where there is no darkness there is no illuminating, so how can one say the lamp illuminates itself and also illuminates others?

問曰：是燈非未生有照，亦非生已有照，但燈生時能自照亦照彼。

The questioner says: This lamp does not illuminate before it has arisen, nor does it illuminate only after it has finished arising, but only while the lamp is in the process of arising it can illuminate itself and others.

答曰：

The answerer says:

「云何燈生時，而能破於闇？

“When the lamp is in the process of arising, how can it destroy darkness?

此燈初生時，不能及於闇。」

This lamp, at the moment it has just arisen, cannot yet reach the darkness.”

燈生時名半生半未生，燈體未成就，云何能破闇？又燈不能及闇，如人得賊乃名為破。若謂燈雖不到闇而能破闇者，是亦不然。何以故？

A lamp in the process of arising is called half arisen and half not yet arisen; the body of the lamp is not yet complete, so how can it destroy darkness? Moreover the lamp cannot reach the darkness; it is like a person who has caught a thief, and only then is it called breaking. If you say that although the lamp cannot reach the darkness it can destroy darkness, this too is wrong. Why?