Madhyamaka Treatise (Zhong Lun), Fascicle One
「作者不作定，亦不作不定，
“An agent does not perform a definite action, and does not perform an indefinite one,
及定不定業，其過如先說。」
and also does not perform an action that is both definite and indefinite; the faults are as said before.”
定業已破，不定業亦破，定不定業亦破；今欲一時總破，故說是偈，是故作者不能作三種業。今三種作者，亦不能作業。何以故？
A definite action has been refuted, an indefinite action has been refuted, and an action both definite and indefinite has been refuted; now wishing to refute them all together at one moment, this verse is spoken. So an agent cannot perform the three kinds of action. Now the three kinds of agent also cannot perform an action. Why?
「作者定不定、亦定亦不定，
“An agent that is definite, or indefinite, or both definite and indefinite,
不能作於業，其過如先說。」
cannot perform an action; the faults are as said before.”
作者定、不定、亦定亦不定，不能作於業。何以故？如先三種過因緣。此中應廣說，如是一切處求作者作業，皆不可得。
An agent that is definite, or indefinite, or both definite and indefinite, cannot perform an action. Why? By the causes and conditions of the three faults as before. Here it should be told at length. In this way, seeking an agent and an action in all places, neither can be obtained.
問曰：若言無作、無作者，則復墮無因。
The questioner says: If you say there is no act and no agent, you again fall into being without a cause.
答曰：是業從眾緣生，假名為有，無有決定。不如汝所說。何以故？
The answerer says: This action arises from many conditions, and is provisionally called existent, with no definiteness. It is not as you say. Why?
「因業有作者，因作者有業，
“By means of the action there is an agent, and by means of the agent there is the action;
成業義如是，更無有餘事。」
the principle by which action is established is this, and there is nothing else.”
業先無決定，因人起業；因業有作者，作者亦無決定。因有作業，名為作者，二事和合故得成作、作者。若從和合生則無自性，無自性故空，空則無所生。但隨凡夫憶想分別故，說有作業有作者；第一義中無作業、無作者。復次：
Action is not definite beforehand, and only because of a person does action arise; only because of action is there an agent, and the agent also is not definite. Because there is the performing of an action, one is called an agent; when the two things come together, then the act and the agent are established. If something arises from combination, it has no self-nature; having no self-nature it is empty; being empty, nothing arises. It is only by following the recollections and discriminations of ordinary people that one says there is an action and an agent; in the ultimate meaning there is no action and no agent. Furthermore:
「如破作作者，受受者亦爾，
“As with the refutation of act and agent, so it is with grasping and the grasper,
及一切諸法，亦應如是破。」
and all dharmas should be refuted in this same way.”
如作、作者不得相離，不相離故不決定，無決定故無自性。受受者亦如是，受名五陰身，受者是人，如是離人無五陰、離五陰無人，但從眾緣生如受受者。餘一切法亦應如是破。
As act and agent cannot be separated from each other, and being inseparable are not definite, and being not definite have no self-nature. Grasping and the grasper are the same: grasping refers to the body of the five aggregates, and the grasper is the person. Thus apart from the person there are no five aggregates, and apart from the five aggregates there is no person; they arise only from many conditions, as with grasping and the grasper. All other dharmas should be refuted in the same way.
中論觀本住品第九(十二偈)
Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 9: Examination of the Original Abider (12 verses)
問曰：有人言：
The questioner says: Someone says:
「眼耳等諸根，苦樂等諸法，
“The eye, ear, and other faculties, and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas,
誰有如是事？是則名本住。
who possesses these things? That is what is called the original abider.
若無有本住，誰有眼等法？
If there were no original abider, who would possess the eye and other such dharmas?
以是故當知，先已有本住。」
Therefore one should know that an original abider existed beforehand.”
眼耳鼻舌身命等諸根，名為眼耳等根。苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受、想、思、憶念等心心數法，名為苦樂等法。有論師言：先未有眼等法，應有本住。因是本住，眼等諸根得增長。若無本住，身及眼等諸根，為因何生而得增長？答曰：
The faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and life are called the eye, ear, and other faculties. Painful feeling, pleasant feeling, neither painful nor pleasant feeling, perception, thought, recollection, and other mind and mental factors are called pain, pleasure, and other dharmas. Some teachers say: before the eye and other dharmas there must be an original abider. Relying on this original abider, the eye and other faculties are able to grow. If there were no original abider, by what cause would the body and the eye and other faculties arise and grow? The answerer says:
「若離眼等根，及苦樂等法，
“If apart from the eye and other faculties, and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas,
先有本住者，以何而可知？」
an original abider existed beforehand, by what can it be known?”
若離眼耳等根、苦樂等法先有本住者，以何可說？以何可知？如外法瓶衣等，以眼等根得知；內法以苦樂等根得知。如經中說：可壞是色相，能受是受相，能識是識相。汝說離眼耳苦樂等先有本住者，以何可知說有是法？
If apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas an original abider existed beforehand, by what can it be said? By what can it be known? Like external things such as a jar or clothing, which are known by means of the eye and other faculties; inner dharmas are known by means of pain, pleasure, and the like. As the sutra says: what can be broken down is the mark of form, what can feel is the mark of feeling, and what can cognize is the mark of consciousness. You say apart from the eye, ear, pain, pleasure, and so on an original abider exists beforehand; by what is it known, and by what do you say that this dharma exists?
問曰：有論師言：出入息、視眴、壽命、思惟、苦樂、憎愛、動發等是神相。若無有神，云何有出入息等相？是故當知，離眼耳等根、苦樂等法先有本住。
The questioner says: Some teachers say: inhalation and exhalation, blinking, lifespan, thinking, pain and pleasure, hatred and love, and impulse are the marks of the spirit. If there were no spirit, how would there be the marks of inhalation and exhalation and the like? So one should know that apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas, an original abider existed beforehand.
答曰：是神若有，應在身內，如壁中有柱；若在身外，如人被鎧。若在身內，身則不可壞，神常在內故。是故言神在身內，但有言說，虛妄無實。若在身外覆身如鎧者，身應不可見，神細密覆故。亦應不可壞，而今實見身壞。是故當知，離苦樂等先無餘法。若謂斷臂時神縮在內不可斷者，斷頭時亦應縮在內不應死，而實有死。是故知離苦樂等先有神者，但有言說虛妄無實。復次若言身大則神大、身小則神小，如燈大則明大、燈小則明小者，如是神則隨身不應常。若隨身者，身無則神無，如燈滅則明滅。若神無常，則與眼耳苦樂等同。是故當知，離眼耳等先無別神。復次如風狂病人不得自在，不應作而作。若有神是諸作主者，云何言不得自在？若風狂病不惱神者，應離神別有所作。如是種種推求，離眼耳等根苦樂等法先無本住。若必謂離眼耳等根苦樂等法有本住者，無有是事。何以故？
The answerer says: If this spirit exists, it should be inside the body, like a pillar in a wall; if it is outside the body, it is like a person wearing armor. If it is inside the body, the body should not be breakable, because the spirit is always within. So the statement that the spirit is inside the body is only words, false and unreal. If it is outside the body covering it like armor, the body should not be visible, because the spirit would cover it densely; nor should it be breakable. But now we actually see the body break down. So one should know that apart from pain, pleasure, and so on, there is no other dharma beforehand. If you say that when an arm is cut off the spirit shrinks inside and so cannot be cut off, then when the head is cut off it should also shrink inside and one should not die, but in fact there is death. So one should know that the statement that apart from pain, pleasure, and so on a spirit existed beforehand is only words, false and unreal. Furthermore, if you say that when the body is large the spirit is large and when the body is small the spirit is small, like a large lamp having large light and a small lamp having small light, then the spirit follows the body and should not be permanent. If it follows the body, then when the body is gone the spirit is gone, like when a lamp goes out the light goes out. If the spirit is impermanent, it is the same as the eye, ear, pain, pleasure, and so on. So one should know that apart from the eye, ear, and so on, there is no other spirit beforehand. Furthermore, take a person sick with madness who has no freedom and does what should not be done. If there were a spirit that is the master of these acts, how could one say he has no freedom? If the sickness of madness does not trouble the spirit, then the spirit should be able to act on its own apart from it. Investigating in all these ways, apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas there is no original abider beforehand. If one insists that apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas there is an original abider, there is no such thing. Why?
「若離眼耳等，而有本住者；
“If there is an original abider apart from the eye, ear, and so on,
亦應離本住，而有眼耳等。」
then there should also be the eye, ear, and so on apart from the original abider.”
若本住離眼耳等根、苦樂等法先有者，今眼耳等根、苦樂等法亦應離本住而有。
If the original abider existed beforehand apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas, then now the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas should also exist apart from the original abider.
問曰：二事相離可爾，但使有本住。
The questioner says: That two things are separate from each other is acceptable; it is enough to let the original abider exist.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「以法知有人，以人知有法；
“By means of dharmas one knows there is a person, and by means of a person one knows there are dharmas;
離法何有人？離人何有法？」
apart from dharmas, where is the person? Apart from the person, where are dharmas?”
法者，眼耳苦樂等。人者，是本住。汝謂以有法故知有人、以有人故知有法。今離眼耳等法何有人？離人何有眼耳等法？復次：
What are called dharmas are the eye, ear, pain, pleasure, and so on. What is called the person is the original abider. You say that because there are dharmas one knows there is a person, and because there is a person one knows there are dharmas. Now apart from the dharmas of the eye, ear, and so on, where is the person? Apart from the person, where are the dharmas of the eye, ear, and so on? Furthermore:
「一切眼等根，實無有本住；
“All faculties such as the eye truly have no original abider;
眼耳等諸根，異相而分別。」
the eye, ear, and other faculties are distinguished by their various different marks.”
眼耳等諸根、苦樂等諸法，實無有本住。因眼緣色生眼識，以和合因緣知有眼耳等諸根，不以本住故知。是故偈中說「一切眼等根，實無有本住」，眼耳等諸根，各自能分別。問曰：
The eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas truly have no original abider. Because the eye takes form as its object and gives rise to eye consciousness, one knows through the causes and conditions of combination that there are the eye, ear, and other faculties, and not through an original abider. So the verse says “all faculties such as the eye truly have no original abider,” and the eye, ear, and other faculties each can discriminate. The questioner says:
「若眼等諸根，無有本住者，
“If the eye and other faculties have no original abider,
眼等一一根，云何能知塵？」
how can each single faculty, the eye and the rest, know its sense object?”
若一切眼耳等諸根、苦樂等諸法無本住者，今一一根云何能知塵？眼耳等諸根無思惟，不應有知。而實知塵，當知離眼耳等諸根，更有能知塵者。
If all the faculties of eye, ear, and so on, and the dharmas of pain, pleasure, and so on, have no original abider, how can each single faculty now know its object? The eye, ear, and other faculties have no thinking and should have no knowing. Yet in fact they know objects, so one should know that apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties there is something else that can know objects.
答曰：若爾者，為一一根中各有知者？為一知者在諸根中？二俱有過。何以故？
The answerer says: If this is so, does each faculty have its own knower, or is there one knower within all the faculties? Both have faults. Why?
「見者即聞者，聞者即受者，
“That which can see is that which can hear, that which can hear is that which can feel,
如是等諸根，則應有本住。」
then these faculties would have an original abider.”
若見者即是聞者、聞者即是受者，則是一神。如是眼等諸根應先有本住。色聲香等無有定知者，或可以眼聞聲，如人有六向隨意見聞。若聞者、見者是一，於眼等根隨意見聞，但是事不然。
If what can see is what can hear and what can hear is what can feel, then it is the same spirit. Then the eye and other faculties would have an original abider beforehand. Forms, sounds, smells, and so on would have no definite knower, and perhaps one could hear sounds with the eye, as a person who has six directions sees and hears at will. If what hears and what sees are one, seeing and hearing at will through the eye and other faculties, but this is not so.
「若見聞各異，受者亦各異，
“If seeing and hearing are each different, and the feeler is also different in each,
見時亦應聞，如是則神多。」
then when seeing one should also hear, and the spirits would be many.”
若見者、聞者、受者各異，則見時亦應聞。何以故？離見者有聞者故。如是鼻舌身中，神應一時行。若爾者，人一而神多，以一切根一時知諸塵。而實不爾，是故見者、聞者、受者不應俱用。復次：
If the one who can see, the one who can hear, and the one who can feel are each different, then when seeing one should also hear. Why? Because apart from the one who can see there is yet another who can hear. In this way, in the nose, tongue, and body, the spirits should operate at the same moment. If so, the person is one but the spirits are many, because all the faculties know various objects at the same moment. But in fact it is not so, so seeing, hearing, and feeling should not all operate at once. Furthermore:
「眼耳等諸根，苦樂等諸法，
“The eye, ear, and other faculties, pain, pleasure, and other dharmas,
所從生諸大，彼大亦無神。」
the great elements from which they arise, in those elements too there is no spirit.”
若人言離眼耳等諸根、苦樂等諸法別有本住，是事已破。今於眼耳等所因四大，是四大中亦無本住。
If someone says that apart from the eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas there is another original abider, this has already been refuted. Now as for the four great elements that the eye, ear, and so on depend on, within these four elements there is also no original abider.
問曰：若眼耳等諸根、苦樂等諸法，無有本住可爾。眼耳等諸根、苦樂等諸法應有。
The questioner says: If the eye, ear, and other faculties and the dharmas of pain, pleasure, and so on have no original abider, that is acceptable. The eye, ear, and other faculties and pain, pleasure, and other dharmas themselves should exist.
答曰：
The answerer says:
「若眼耳等根，苦樂等諸法，
“If the eye, ear, and other faculties, pain, pleasure, and other dharmas,
無有本住者，眼等亦應無。」
have no original abider, the eye and so on should also not exist.”
若眼耳苦樂等諸法無有本住者，誰有此眼耳等？何緣而有？是故眼耳等亦無。復次：
If the dharmas of eye, ear, pain, pleasure, and so on have no original abider, who possesses these eyes, ears, and so on? By what causes and conditions do they exist? So the eye, ear, and so on also do not exist. Furthermore:
「眼等無本住，今後亦復無，
“The eye and so on had no original abider before, and will have none hereafter,
以三世無故，無有無分別。」
since in the three times it is absent, there is no ‘being’ and also no discrimination.”
思惟推求本住，於眼等先無，今後亦無。若三世無，即是無生寂滅。不應有難：若無本住，云何有眼等？如是問答、戲論則滅。戲論滅故，諸法則空。
Thinking and investigating the original abider: before the eye and so on it did not exist, and hereafter it does not exist either. If it does not exist in the three times, that is also non-arising and quiescence. One should not raise further objections such as: if there is no original abider, how can there be the eye and so on? In this way, questions, answers, and conceptual proliferation are extinguished. When conceptual proliferation is extinguished, all dharmas are empty.
中論觀燃可燃品第十(十六偈)
Treatise on the Middle, Chapter 10: Examination of Fire and Fuel (16 verses)
問曰：應有受、受者，如燃、可燃，燃是受者、可燃是受，所謂五陰。
The questioner says: There should be grasping and a grasper, like burning and fuel: burning is the grasper, and the fuel is grasping, namely the five aggregates.