Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
「法已滅不滅，未滅亦不滅，
“A dharma that has already ceased does not cease, one that has not yet ceased also does not cease,
滅時亦不滅，無生何有滅？」
one that is in the process of ceasing also does not cease; with no arising, where is ceasing?”
若法已滅則不滅，以先滅故。未滅亦不滅，離滅相故。滅時亦不滅，離二更無滅時。如是推求，滅法即是無生，無生何有滅？復次：
If a dharma has already ceased, it does not cease, because it had already ceased before. If it has not yet ceased, it also does not cease, because it is apart from the mark of ceasing. If it is in the process of ceasing, it also does not cease, because apart from these two sides there is no further time of ceasing. Investigating in this way, the dharma of ceasing is also non-arising; with no arising, where is ceasing? Furthermore:
「法若有住者，是則不應滅；
“If a dharma abides, it should not cease;
法若不住者，是亦不應滅。」
if a dharma does not abide, it should also not cease.”
若法定住則無有滅。何以故？由有住相故。若住法滅，則有二相：住相、滅相。是故不得言住中有滅，如生死不得一時有。若法不住，亦無有滅。何以故？離住相故。若離住相則無法，無法雲何滅？復次：
If a dharma definitely abides, it has no ceasing. Why? Because it has the mark of abiding. If a dharma that abides ceases, there would be two marks: the mark of abiding and the mark of ceasing. So one cannot say that within abiding there is ceasing, just as birth and death cannot exist at the same moment. If a dharma does not abide, it also has no ceasing. Why? Because it is apart from the mark of abiding. If apart from the mark of abiding there is no dharma, then with no dharma, how can it cease? Furthermore:
「是法於是時，不於是時滅；
“This dharma, at this time, does not cease at this time;
是法於異時，不於異時滅。」
this dharma, at another time, also does not cease at another time.”
若法有滅相，是法為自相滅？為異相滅？二俱不然。何以故？如乳不於乳時滅。隨有乳時，乳相定住故。非乳時亦不滅，若非乳不得言乳滅。復次：
If a dharma has the mark of ceasing, does this dharma cease by its own mark or by a different mark? Both are wrong. Why? Just as milk does not cease at the time of milk. As long as it is still the time of milk, the mark of milk remains fixed. At a time that is not the time of milk it also does not cease; if it is not milk, one cannot say milk ceases. Furthermore:
「如一切諸法，生相不可得；
“Just as with all dharmas, the mark of arising cannot be obtained;
以無生相故，即亦無滅相。」
because there is no mark of arising, there is also no mark of ceasing.”
如先推求，一切法生相不可得，爾時即無滅相，破生故無生，無生云何有滅？若汝意猶未已，今當更說破滅因緣。
As in the earlier investigation, the mark of arising of all dharmas cannot be obtained, and at that time there is also no mark of ceasing: since arising is refuted, there is no arising, and with no arising, how could there be ceasing? If your mind has still not stopped, I will now further refute the causes and conditions of ceasing.
「若法是有者，是即無有滅；
“If a dharma exists, it has no ceasing;
不應於一法，而有有無相。」
it should not be that in the same dharma there is both the mark of ‘existence’ and the mark of ‘non-existence.’”
諸法有時，推求滅相不可得。何以故？云何一法中亦有亦無相？如光影不同處。復次：
When dharmas are still existent, investigating the mark of ceasing yields nothing. Why? How can there be, in one dharma, the marks of both existence and non-existence? Just as light and shadow are not in the same place. Furthermore:
「若法是無者，是即無有滅；
“If a dharma does not exist, it has no ceasing;
譬如第二頭，無故不可斷。」
like a second head, which cannot be cut off because it does not exist.”
法若無者則無滅相，如第二頭、第三手，無故不可斷。復次：
If a dharma does not exist, there is no mark of ceasing, like a second head or a third hand, which cannot be cut off because they do not exist. Furthermore:
「法不自相滅，他相亦不滅；
“A dharma does not cease by its own mark, nor by another's mark;
如自相不生，他相亦不生。」
just as it does not arise by its own mark, nor by another's.”
如先說生相，生不自生亦不從他生。若以自體生，是則不然，一切物皆從眾緣生。如指端不能自觸，如是生不能自生。從他生亦不然。何以故？生未有故，不應從他生。是生無故無自體，自體無故他亦無，是故從他生亦不然。滅法亦如是，不自相滅、不他相滅。復次：
As said earlier about the mark of arising: arising does not arise by itself, nor does it arise from another. If it arises by its own substance, this is wrong, since all things arise from the many conditions. Just as a fingertip cannot touch itself, arising cannot arise itself. Arising from another is also wrong. Why? Since arising does not yet exist, it should not arise from another. If this arising does not exist, there is no own-substance; if own-substance does not exist, then other does not exist either, so arising from another is also wrong. The dharma of ceasing is the same: it does not cease by its own mark and does not cease by another's mark. Furthermore:
「生住滅不成，故無有有為；
“Arising, abiding, and ceasing are all not established, and so there is no conditioned;
有為法無故，何得有無為？」
if there are no conditioned dharmas, where could there be the unconditioned?”
汝先說有生、住、滅相故有有為，以有有為故有無為。今以理推求，三相不可得，云何得有有為？如先說，無有無相法，有為法無故，何得有無為？無為相名不生不住不滅。止有為相故名無為相，無為自無別相，因是三相有無為相。如火為熱相、地為堅相、水為冷相，無為則不然。
You said before that because there are the marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing there is the conditioned, and because there is the conditioned there is the unconditioned. Now, investigating according to reason, the three marks cannot be obtained, so how can there be the conditioned? As said before, there is no dharma without marks; if conditioned dharmas do not exist, where could there be the unconditioned? The mark of the unconditioned is called non-arising, non-abiding, and non-ceasing. Only by stopping the marks of the conditioned is it called the mark of the unconditioned; the unconditioned has no separate mark of its own, and the mark of the unconditioned exists by means of these three marks. Just as fire has heat as its mark, earth has solidity as its mark, and water has coolness as its mark, the unconditioned is not like that.
問曰：若是生、住、滅畢竟無者，云何論中得說名字？
The questioner says: If arising, abiding, and ceasing ultimately do not exist, how can the treatise still speak these names?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「如幻亦如夢，如乾闥婆城，
“Like an illusion, and like a dream, like a gandharva city (a city made by a mirage, which seems to exist from afar but is not there when near),
所說生住滅，其相亦如是。」
what is called arising, abiding, and ceasing, their marks are also like this.”
生、住、滅相無有決定，凡人貪著謂有決定。諸賢聖憐愍欲止其顛倒，還以其所著名字為說，語言雖同其心則異。如是說生、住、滅相，不應有難。如幻化所作，不應責其所由，不應於中有憂喜想，但應眼見而已。如夢中所見不應求實，如乾闥婆城日出時現而無有實，但假為名字不久則滅。生、住、滅亦如是，凡夫分別為有，智者推求則不可得。
The marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing are not definite, but ordinary people cling to them and say they are definite. The worthy and the sages, out of pity, wish to stop their inversion, and still use the very names they are attached to to speak; although the words are the same, the mind is different. Speaking of the marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing in this way should not draw further objections. Like what an illusion creates, one should not investigate where it comes from or give rise to thoughts of sorrow or joy in it, but only look at it with the eyes. Like what is seen in a dream, one should not seek its reality; like the gandharva city, which appears when the sun comes up but has no substance, it is only a provisionally established name and soon vanishes. Arising, abiding, and ceasing are likewise: ordinary people discriminate them as existing, but the wise cannot find them once they investigate.
中論觀作作者品第八(十二偈)
Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 8: Examination of Action and Agent (12 verses)
問曰：現有作、有作者、有所用作法，三事和合故有果報，是故應有作者、作業。
The questioner says: In what is before us there is an action, an agent, and a method of action that is used, and because these three things come together there is a karmic result, so there should be an agent and an act.
答曰：上來品品中破一切法皆無有餘。如破三相，三相無故無有有為，有為無故無無為。有為無為無故，一切法盡無作、作者。若是有為，有為中已破。若是無為，無為中已破。不應復問。汝著心深故而復更問，今當復答。
The answerer says: In the preceding chapters, one chapter after another, all dharmas have been refuted without remainder. For example, in refuting the three marks: if the three marks do not exist, there is no conditioned; if the conditioned does not exist, there is no unconditioned. If neither the conditioned nor the unconditioned exists, then all dharmas have no action and no agent. If it is conditioned, it has already been refuted within the conditioned. If it is unconditioned, it has already been refuted within the unconditioned. One should not ask again. Your clinging mind is deep, so you ask again, and now I will answer again.
「決定有作者，不作決定業；
“An agent that definitely exists does not perform a definite action;
決定無作者，不作無定業。」
an agent that definitely does not exist also does not perform an indefinite action.”
若先定有作者、定有作業，則不應作。若先定無作者、定無作業，亦不應作。何以故？
If beforehand there definitely is an agent and definitely is an action, there should be no further performing. If beforehand there definitely is no agent and definitely is no action, there should also be no performing. Why?
「決定業無作，是業無作者；
“A definite action is not performed, and this action has no agent;
定作者無作，作者亦無業。」
a definite agent does not perform, and the agent has no action.”
若先決定有作業，不應更有作者；又離作者應有作業。但是事不然。若先決定有作者，不應更有作業；又離作業應有作者。但是事不然。是故決定作者、決定作業，不應有作。不決定作者、不決定作業，亦不應有作。何以故？本來無故。有作者、有作業尚不能作，何況無作者、無作業。復次：
If an action definitely exists beforehand, there should be no further agent; moreover, apart from the agent there should already be an action. But this is not so. If an agent definitely exists beforehand, there should be no further action; moreover, apart from the action there should already be an agent. But this is not so. So a definite agent and a definite action should not perform. An indefinite agent and an indefinite action also should not perform. Why? Because they do not exist from the start. Even those that have an agent and have an action cannot perform, how much less those with no agent and no action. Furthermore:
「若定有作者，亦定有作業，
“If an agent definitely exists, and an action also definitely exists,
作者及作業，即墮於無因。」
then the agent and the action fall into being without a cause.”
若先定有作者、定有作業，汝謂作者有作，即為無因，離作業有作者、離作者有作業，則不從因緣有。
If beforehand an agent definitely exists and an action definitely exists, and you still say the agent performs, then that is being without a cause: with the agent existing apart from the action and the action existing apart from the agent, they do not exist from causes and conditions.
問曰：若不從因緣有作者、有作業，有何咎？
The questioner says: If an agent and an action exist not from causes and conditions, what fault is there?
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若墮於無因，則無因無果，
“If it falls into being without a cause, there is no cause and no effect,
無作無作者，無所用作法。
no action, no agent, and no method of action used.
若無作等法，則無有罪福，
If there are no dharmas such as action, there is no sin or merit,
罪福等無故，罪福報亦無。
and if sin, merit, and the like do not exist, the fruit of sin and merit also does not exist.
若無罪福報，亦無有涅槃，
If there is no fruit of sin and merit, there is also no nirvana,
諸可有所作，皆空無有果。」
and everything that can be done is empty and without fruit.”
若墮於無因，一切法則無因無果。能生法名為因、所生法名為果，是二即無。是二無故，無作、無作者亦無所用作法，亦無罪福。罪福無故，亦無罪福果報及涅槃道。是故不得從無因生。
If it falls into being without a cause, all dharmas have no cause and no effect. A dharma that can produce is called a cause, and a dharma that is produced is called an effect, and both of these would not exist. If these two do not exist, there is no action, no agent, no method of action used, and no sin or merit. If there is no sin or merit, there is also no retribution of sin and merit and no path to nirvana. So things cannot arise without a cause.
問曰：若作者不定，而作不定業，有何咎？
The questioner says: If the agent is not definite but performs an action that is not definite, what fault is there?
答曰：一事無尚不能起作業，何況二事都無。譬如化人以虛空為舍，但有言說，而無作者、作業。
The answerer says: With even one of the two missing, an action cannot be started; how much less with both missing. It is like an illusory person taking empty space as a house: there are only words, with no agent and no action.
問曰：若無作者、無作業，不能有所作；今有作者、有作業，應有作。
The questioner says: If there is no agent and no action, there can be no performing; now that there is an agent and an action, there should be performing.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「作者定不定，不能作二業，
“An agent, whether definite or indefinite, cannot perform these two kinds of action,
有無相違故，一處則無二。」
since being and non-being are opposed, and two cannot exist in one place.”
作者定不定，不能作定不定業。何以故？有無相違故，一處不應有二。有是決定、無是不決定，一人一事云何有有無？復次：
An agent, whether definite or indefinite, cannot perform a definite or an indefinite action. Why? Being and non-being are opposed, and two should not exist in one place. Being is definite and non-being is indefinite; how can the same person and the same matter be both existent and nonexistent? Furthermore:
「有不能作無，無不能作有，
“Being cannot make non-being, and non-being cannot make being;
若有作作者，其過如先說。」
if there is an act and an agent, the faults are as said before.”
若有作者而無業，何能有所作？若無作者而有業，亦不能有所作。何以故？如先說。有中若先有業，作者復何所作？若先無業，云何可得作？如是則破罪福等因緣果報。是故偈中說「有不能作無，無不能作有，若有作作者，其過如先說。」復次：
If there is an agent but no action, how can there be performing? If there is no agent but there is an action, there also cannot be performing. Why? As said before. If in being there already was an action beforehand, what does the agent still perform? If there was no action beforehand, how could it be performed? In this way the causes, conditions, and effects of sin, merit, and the like are refuted. So the verse says: “Being cannot make non-being, and non-being cannot make being; if there is an act and an agent, the faults are as said before.” Furthermore: