Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One

「燈若未及闇，而能破闇者，

“If the lamp, though it cannot yet reach the darkness, can destroy the darkness,

燈在於此間，則破一切闇。」

then a lamp here should destroy the darkness in all places.”

若燈有力，不到闇而能破者。此處燃燈，應破一切處闇，俱不及故。復次燈不應自照、照彼。何以故？

If the lamp had the power to destroy darkness without reaching it, then lighting a lamp here should destroy the darkness in all places, since all are equally unreached. Furthermore, the lamp should neither illuminate itself nor illuminate others. Why?

「若燈能自照，亦能照於彼；

“If the lamp can illuminate itself and also illuminate others;

闇亦應自闇，亦能闇於彼。」

then darkness should also darken itself and also darken others.”

若燈與闇相違故，能自照亦照於彼。闇與燈相違故，亦應自蔽蔽彼。若闇與燈相違，不能自蔽蔽彼。燈與闇相違，亦不應自照亦照彼。是故燈喻非也。破生因緣未盡故，今當更說。

If the lamp, because it is opposed to darkness, can illuminate itself and others, then darkness, because it is opposed to the lamp, should also conceal itself and conceal others. If darkness, though opposed to the lamp, cannot conceal itself or conceal others, then the lamp, though opposed to darkness, should also not illuminate itself and others. So the example of the lamp is wrong. The causes and conditions for refuting arising have not yet been fully told, and now I will say more.

「此生若未生，云何能自生？

“If this arising has not yet arisen, how can it arise itself?

若生已自生，生已何用生？」

If it arises itself after it has already arisen, what need is there to arise when it has already arisen?”

是生自生時，為生已生？為未生生？若未生生，則是無法，無法何能自生？若謂生已生，則為已成，不須復生，如已作不應更作。若已生、若未生，是二俱不生，故無生。汝先說生如燈，能自生亦生彼，是事不然；住、滅亦如是。復次：

When this arising arises itself, does it arise after already having arisen, or arise when it has not yet arisen? If it arises when it has not yet arisen, then it is a nonexistent dharma, and how can a nonexistent dharma arise itself? If you say it arises again after having arisen, then it is already accomplished and need not arise again, like what has already been made should not be made again. Whether already arisen or not yet arisen, neither can arise, and so there is no arising. What you said before, that arising is like a lamp that can arise itself and also give rise to others, is wrong; abiding and ceasing are the same. Furthermore:

「生非生已生，亦非未生生，

“Arising is not already-arisen arising again, nor is it not-yet-arisen arising,

生時亦不生，去來中已答。」

nor does it arise at the time of arising; this was already answered in the chapter on Going and Coming.”

生名眾緣和合有生，已生中無作故無生，未生中無作故無生。生時亦不然，離生法生時不可得、離生時生法亦不可得、云何生時生？是事〈去來〉中已答。已生法不可生。何以故？生已復生，如是展轉則為無窮，如作已復作。復次若生已更生者，以何生法生？是生相未生。而言生已生者，則自違所說。何以故？生相未生而汝謂生。若未生謂生者，法或可生已而生、或可未生而生。汝先說生已生，是則不定。復次如燒已不應復燒、去已不應復去，如是等因緣故，生已不應生。未生法亦不生。何以故？法若未生則不應與生緣和合，若不與生緣和合則無法生。若法未與生緣和合而生者，應無作法而作、無去法而去、無染法而染、無恚法而恚、無痴法而痴。如是則皆破世間法，是故未生法不生。復次若未生法生者，世間未生法皆應生，一切凡夫未生菩提今應生菩提，不壞法阿羅漢無有煩惱今應生煩惱，兔等無角今皆應生。但是事不然，是故未生法亦不生。

What is called arising is that arising exists because the many conditions come together. In what has already arisen there is no “making,” so there is no arising; in what has not yet arisen there is no “making,” so there is no arising. At the time of arising it is also wrong: apart from the dharma of arising, the time of arising cannot be obtained; apart from the time of arising, the dharma of arising cannot be obtained, so how can one say arising is occurring at the time of arising? This matter was already answered in the chapter on Going and Coming. A dharma that has already arisen cannot arise again. Why? If it arises again after having arisen, this goes on endlessly in turn, like making again what has been made. Moreover, if it arises again after having arisen, by which dharma of arising does it arise? This mark of arising has not yet arisen. If you say it arises again after already arising, you contradict what you said yourself. Why? The mark of arising has not yet arisen, yet you say it arises. If it has not yet arisen and you say it arises, then a dharma could perhaps arise again after having arisen, or could perhaps arise without having arisen. What you said before, that it arises again after having arisen, is thus not fixed. Furthermore, just as what has been burned should not be burned again and what has been gone to should not be gone to again, by this kind of reasoning what has already arisen should not arise again. A dharma that has not yet arisen also does not arise. Why? If a dharma has not yet arisen, it should not come together with the conditions of arising; if it does not come together with the conditions of arising, there is no dharma arising. If a dharma that has not yet come together with the conditions of arising were to arise, then dharmas with no making would be made, dharmas with no going would be gone, dharmas with no defilement would be defiled, dharmas with no anger would be angry, and dharmas with no ignorance would be ignorant. In this way all worldly dharmas would be destroyed, so a dharma that has not yet arisen does not arise. Furthermore, if a dharma that has not yet arisen could arise, all the dharmas in the world that have not yet arisen should arise: all ordinary people who have not yet given rise to bodhi should now give rise to bodhi; arhats who have not destroyed dharmas and have no afflictions should now give rise to afflictions; hares and the like with no horns should now all grow horns. But this is not so, and so a dharma that has not yet arisen also does not arise.

問曰：未生法不生者，以未有緣、無作、無作者、無時、無方等故不生。若有緣、有作、有作者、有時、有方等和合故，未生法生。是故若說一切未生法皆不生，是事不爾。

The questioner says: A dharma that has not yet arisen does not arise because it does not yet have conditions, no making, no maker, no time, no direction, and so on, and so does not arise. If there are conditions, making, a maker, time, direction, and so on coming together, the dharma that has not yet arisen arises. So to say that all dharmas not yet arisen do not arise is wrong.

答曰：若法有緣、有時、有方等和合則生者，先有亦不生、先無亦不生、有無亦不生。三種先已破，是故生已不生。未生亦不生、生時亦不生。何以故？已生分不生，未生分亦不生，如先答。復次若離生有生時者，應生時生。但離生無生時，是故生時亦不生。復次若言生時生者，則有二生過：一以生故名生時；二以生時中生。二皆不然。無有二法，云何有二生？是故生時亦不生。復次生法未發則無生時，生時無故生何所依？是故不得言生時生。如是推求，生已無生、未生無生、生時無生，無生故生不成，生不成故住、滅亦不成。生、住、滅不成，故有為法不成。是故偈中說去未去去時中已答。

The answerer says: If a dharma arises when conditions, time, direction, and so on come together, then what existed before also does not arise, what did not exist before also does not arise, and what both exists and does not exist also does not arise. These three have already been refuted above, so what has already arisen does not arise, what has not yet arisen does not arise, and what is in the process of arising does not arise. Why? The portion that has already arisen does not arise, and the portion that has not yet arisen does not arise, as was answered before. Furthermore, if apart from arising there were a time of arising, then it would be right to say that arising occurs at the time of arising. But apart from arising there is no time of arising, so the time of arising also does not arise. Furthermore, if one says arising occurs at the time of arising, there are two faults of arising: first, because of arising it is called the time of arising; second, within the time of arising there is further arising. Both are wrong. Since there are not two dharmas, how can there be two kinds of arising? So the time of arising also does not arise. Furthermore, when the dharma of arising has not yet been set in motion, there is no time of arising; if the time of arising does not exist, what does arising rely on? So one cannot say that arising occurs at the time of arising. Investigating in this way: what has already arisen has no arising, what has not yet arisen has no arising, and the time of arising has no arising; since there is no arising, arising cannot be established; since arising cannot be established, abiding and ceasing also cannot be established. When arising, abiding, and ceasing cannot be established, conditioned dharmas cannot be established. So the verse says: what has already gone, what has not yet gone, and what is going were already answered.

問曰：我不定言生已生、未生生、生時生，但眾緣和合故有生。

The questioner says: I do not fixedly say that it arises again after having arisen, or arises without having arisen, or arises at the time of arising; I only say that arising exists because the many conditions come together.

答曰：汝雖有是說，此則不然。何以故？

The answerer says: Although you have this view, it is still wrong. Why?

「若謂生時生，是事已不成；

“If you say that arising occurs at the time of arising, this matter has already been refuted;

云何眾緣合，爾時而得生？」

how could it be that when the many conditions come together, at that time it can arise?”

生時生已種種因緣破，汝今何以更說眾緣和合故有生？若眾緣具足、不具足，皆與生同破。復次：

Arising at the time of arising has already been refuted by various causes and conditions, so on what basis do you now say that arising exists because the many conditions come together? Whether the many conditions are complete or not, they are refuted together with arising. Furthermore:

「若法眾緣生，即是寂滅性；

“If a dharma arises from the many conditions, it is of the nature of quiescence;

是故生生時，是二俱寂滅。」

so arising and the time of arising, both of these are quiescent.”

眾緣所生法，無自性故寂滅，寂滅名為無此無彼無相，斷言語道、滅諸戲論。眾緣名，如因縷有布、因蒲有席。若縷自有定相，不應從麻出。若布自有定相，不應從縷出。而實從縷有布、從麻有縷，是故縷亦無定性、布亦無定性。如燃、可燃因緣和合成，無有自性，可燃無故燃亦無、燃無故可燃亦無。一切法亦如是，是故從眾緣生法無自性，無自性故空，如野馬無實。是故偈中說生與生時二俱寂滅，不應說生時生。汝雖種種因緣欲成生相，皆是戲論，非寂滅相。

A dharma produced by the many conditions is quiescent because it has no self-nature. What is called quiescent is having no this, no that, and no sign, cutting off the road of words and extinguishing all conceptual proliferation. As for the many conditions, for example, cloth exists because of threads and a mat exists because of rushes. If the thread itself had a fixed mark, it should not come out of hemp. If the cloth itself had a fixed mark, it should not come out of thread. But in fact cloth comes from thread and thread comes from hemp, so thread has no fixed nature and cloth has no fixed nature. Like burning and what is burned, which come about by the combination of causes and conditions and have no self-nature: if there is no fuel there is no burning; if there is no burning there is no fuel. All dharmas are likewise, so dharmas that arise from many conditions have no self-nature, and because they have no self-nature they are empty, like a mirage with no substance. So the verse says that arising and the time of arising are both quiescent, and one should not say arising occurs at the time of arising. Although you use various causes and conditions to try to establish the mark of arising, all of it is conceptual proliferation and not the mark of quiescence.

問曰：定有三世別異。未來世法得生，因緣即生。何故言無生？答曰：

The questioner says: There are definitely differences among the three times. A dharma of the future obtains the conditions of arising and so arises. Why do you say there is no arising? The answerer says:

「若有未生法，說言有生者，

“If there is a not-yet-arisen dharma, yet you say it has arising,

此法先已有，更復何用生？」

this dharma already existed before, so what need is there to arise?”

若未來世中有未生法而生，是法先已有，何用更生？有法不應更生。

If in the future time there is a dharma that has not yet arisen and it arises, this dharma already existed before, so what need is there for it to arise again? A dharma that already exists should not arise again.

問曰：未來雖有，非如現在相，以現在相故說生。

The questioner says: Although it exists in the future, it does not have the mark of the present; it is because the mark of the present appears that one says it arises.

答曰：現在相未來中無，若無，云何言未來生法生；若有，不名未來，應名現在，現在不應更生。二俱無生，故不生。復次汝謂生時生亦能生彼。今當更說。

The answerer says: The mark of the present does not exist in the future. If it does not exist, how can one say the arising dharma of the future is arising; if it does exist, it would not be called future but present, and the present should not arise again. In both cases there is no arising, so there is no arising. Furthermore, you say that arising occurs at the time of arising and can also give rise to others. Now I will say more.

「若言生時生，是能有所生；

“If you say that arising occurs at the time of arising, it can give rise to something;

何得更有生，而能生是生？」

how could there be yet another arising that gives rise to this arising?”

若生生時能生彼，是生誰復能生？

If arising, when it is arising, can give rise to others, then who gives rise to this arising?

「若謂更有生，生生則無窮，

“If you say there is yet another arising, arising would be endless,

離生生有生，法皆能自生。」

and if apart from the arising of arising there is still arising, then all dharmas would be able to arise by themselves.”

若生更有生，生則無窮。若是生更無生而自生者，一切法亦皆能自生，而實不爾。復次：

If arising has yet another arising, arising would be endless. If this arising has no further arising and yet can arise by itself, then all dharmas too should be able to arise by themselves, but in fact it is not so. Furthermore:

「有法不應生，無亦不應生，

“A dharma that exists should not arise, a dharma that does not exist should also not arise,

有無亦不生，此義先已說。」

and one that both exists and does not exist also does not arise; this principle was stated before.”

凡所有生，為有法有生？為無法有生？為有無法有生？是皆不然，是事先已說。離此三事更無有生，是故無生。復次：

Whatever has arising, does a dharma that exists have arising, or a dharma that does not exist have arising, or a dharma that both exists and does not exist have arising? All of these are wrong, as was stated before. Apart from these three alternatives there is no further arising, so there is no arising. Furthermore:

「若諸法滅時，是時不應生；

“If dharmas are in the process of ceasing, at that time they should not arise;

法若不滅者，終無有是事。」

if a dharma does not cease at all, there is in the end no such thing.”

若法滅相，是法不應生。何以故？二相相違故。一是滅相，知法是滅。一是生相，知法是生。二相相違法，一時則不然，是故滅相法不應生。

If a dharma carries the mark of ceasing, this dharma should not arise. Why? Two marks are opposed to each other. One is the mark of ceasing, by which one knows the dharma is ceasing; the other is the mark of arising, by which one knows the dharma is arising. Dharmas with two opposed marks cannot exist at the same moment, so a dharma carrying the mark of ceasing should not arise.

問曰：若滅相法不應生，不滅相法應生。

The questioner says: If a dharma carrying the mark of ceasing should not arise, then a dharma not carrying the mark of ceasing should arise.

答曰：一切有為法念念滅故，無不滅法。離有為，無有決定無為法。無為法但有名字，是故說不滅法，終無有是事。

The answerer says: All conditioned dharmas cease moment by moment, so there are no dharmas that do not cease. Apart from the conditioned, there is no definite unconditioned dharma. The unconditioned dharma has only a name, so it is said that a dharma that does not cease is in the end nonexistent.

問曰：若法無生，應有住。

The questioner says: If dharmas have no arising, there should be abiding.

答曰：

The answerer says:

「不住法不住，住法亦不住，

“A dharma that does not abide does not abide, a dharma that abides also does not abide,

住時亦不住，無生云何住？」

it does not abide even in the process of abiding; with no arising, how could it abide?”

不住法不住，無住相故。住法亦不住。何以故？已有住故。因去故有住，若住法先有，不應更住。住時亦不住，離住、不住更無住時，是故亦不住。如是一切處求住不可得故，即是無生。若無生，云何有住？復次：

A dharma that does not abide does not abide, because it has no mark of abiding. A dharma that abides also does not abide. Why? Because it already has abiding. Abiding depends on going; if the dharma of abiding already existed before, it should not abide again. It also does not abide in the process of abiding: apart from abiding and not abiding there is no further time of abiding, so it also does not abide. Thus seeking abiding in all places yields nothing, which is also non-arising. If there is no arising, how can there be abiding? Furthermore:

「若諸法滅時，是則不應住；

“If dharmas are in the process of ceasing, they should not abide;

法若不滅者，終無有是事。」

if a dharma does not cease at all, there is in the end no such thing.”

若法滅相，是法無有住相。何以故？一法中有二相相違故，一是滅相、二是住相。一時一處有住滅相，是事不然，是故不得言滅相法有住。

If a dharma carries the mark of ceasing, this dharma has no mark of abiding. Why? In one dharma there would be two opposed marks: first the mark of ceasing, second the mark of abiding. For abiding and ceasing, two marks, to exist at the same moment and the same place is wrong, so one cannot say that a dharma carrying the mark of ceasing has abiding.

問曰：若法不滅，應有住。

The questioner says: If a dharma does not cease, there should be abiding.

答曰：無有不滅法。何以故？

The answerer says: There is no dharma that does not cease. Why?

「所有一切法，皆是老死相，

“All dharmas whatever carry the marks of aging and death,

終不見有法，離老死有住。」

and in the end one never sees a dharma that can abide apart from aging and death.”

一切法生時，無常常隨逐。無常有二，名老及死。如是一切法常有老死，故無住時。復次：

When any dharma arises, impermanence constantly follows it. Impermanence has two names: aging and death. Thus all dharmas constantly have aging and death, so there is no time for abiding. Furthermore:

「住不自相住，亦不異相住；

“Abiding does not abide by its own mark, nor by a mark different from itself;

如生不自生，亦不異相生。」

just as arising does not arise by itself, nor by another's mark.”

若有住法，為自相住？為他相住？二俱不然。若自相住，則為是常。一切有為法從眾緣生，若住法自住，則不名有為。住若自相住，法亦應自相住。如眼不能自見，住亦如是。若異相住，則住更有住，是則無窮。復次見異法生異相，不得不因異法而有異相，異相不定故。因異相而住者，是事不然。

If there is a dharma of abiding, does it abide by its own mark or by another's mark? Both are wrong. If it abides by its own mark, it would be permanent. All conditioned dharmas arise from many conditions; if the dharma of abiding abides by itself, it would not be called conditioned. If abiding abides by its own mark, a dharma should also abide by its own mark. Just as the eye cannot see itself, abiding is the same. If it abides by a different mark, abiding would need yet another abiding, and this would go on endlessly. Furthermore, we see that when a different dharma produces a different mark, it must depend on a different dharma to have a different mark, and the different mark is not fixed. To abide by a different mark is wrong.

問曰：若無住，應有滅。

The questioner says: If there is no abiding, there should be ceasing.

答曰：無。何以故？

The answerer says: There is not. Why?