中論

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO:

EXAMINATION OF THE TATHAGATA

The Tathagata is not the skandhas (the five arising-and-ceasing aggregates), nor is he separate from the five skandhas. The Tathagata does not exist within the five skandhas, nor do the five skandhas exist within the Tathagata. (The Tathagata is neither inside nor outside the five skandhas.) Since the Tathagata does not exist within the five skandhas, where does the Tathagata exist?

If the Tathagata’s existence is due to the conjunction of the five skandhas, then the Tathagata has no self-nature. And if he has no self-nature, how could he exist by depending upon other-nature?

If a dharma arises in dependence upon other-nature, it is precisely not-self. If a dharma is not-self, how could it be the Tathagata?

If there is no self-nature, how can there be other-nature? Apart from self-nature and other-nature, what is called the Tathagata?

If it is said that the Tathagata existed previously without depending upon the five skandhas, and that because he presently assumes the body of the five skandhas he is called the Tathagata, this is incorrect. For in truth, he has presently assumed no skandha whatsoever, nor is there any dharma called the Tathagata. If the Tathagata did not exist because he had not assumed the five skandhas, what must he now assume in order to exist?

If he has not yet assumed them, that which is to be assumed cannot be called an assumption. No unassumed dharma is called the Tathagata. If the Tathagata’s existence cannot be found in identity, in difference, or in the five skandhas, how can it be said that the Tathagata exists while assuming the five skandhas?

Moreover, the assumed five skandhas do not exist through self-nature; and if self-nature does not exist, how can other-nature exist? (Since there is no self-nature, there is also no other-nature.)

For such reasons, both the assumed skandhas (the assumption) and the one who assumes them (the appropriator: the Tathagata) are empty. And (if they are empty and all lack self-nature), how can emptiness (the five skandhas’ lack of self-nature) be used to claim that, because he lacks self-nature, the Tathagata cannot exist?

What is empty (devoid of self-nature) cannot be stated (is inexpressible), and what is not empty likewise cannot be discussed. Both empty and not empty, neither empty nor not empty (the combined and the uncombined: both empty and not empty—the combined; neither empty nor not empty—the uncombined), are also beyond discussion. Therefore, conventional designation alone (a name without real self-nature) is used to say that there is a Tathagata.

Within the characteristic of quiescent cessation itself (the true characteristic—absence of nature), there is originally neither permanence nor impermanence, and so forth—the four propositions (permanent; impermanent; both permanent and impermanent; neither permanent nor impermanent). Likewise, within the characteristic of quiescent cessation there is neither finite nor infinite, and so forth—the four propositions (* finite; infinite; both finite and infinite; neither finite nor infinite).

One deeply burdened by wrong views may say that the Tathagata does not exist; yet it is equally unreasonable to discriminate regarding the Tathagata’s characteristic of quiescent cessation and regard it as existent.

Thus, within emptiness, however one may conceive of it, it can neither be reached nor grasped; nevertheless, after the Tathagata’s cessation, people endlessly give rise to discriminations of existence and nonexistence!

The Tathagata has transcended every conceptual proliferation, yet people (because of ignorance) give rise to innumerable proliferations. Through such proliferation, the eye of wisdom is destroyed; and because the eye of wisdom is destroyed, they cannot see the Buddha.

The self-nature possessed by the Tathagata is precisely the self-nature of the world. Since the Tathagata has no self-nature, the world likewise has no self-nature.

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE:

EXAMINATION OF ERROR

From discriminating recollections and deluded conceptions arise greed, aversion, and delusion. The errors concerning purity and impurity (* cleanliness and uncleanliness) also arise from conditions.

If the three poisons—greed, aversion, and delusion—arise because of the errors of purity and impurity, then the three poisons themselves have no self-nature; therefore, the afflictions have no true existence.

Whether self and dharmas (* here referring to the afflictions) exist or do not exist cannot be established at all. Without a real self, the afflictions, whether existent or nonexistent, cannot be established.

(If it is claimed that although there is no self, the afflictions can still be established, then one must ask: since there is no self,) who is the possessor of these afflictions? (And if no one possesses these afflictions,) they necessarily cannot be established. If the afflictions exist independently, apart from a person, then those afflictions belong nowhere (to nothing and no one).

Just as, regarding the view of a personal self ( attachment to a self, even when it is claimed that: 1. the self is apart from the skandhas; 2. the skandhas themselves are the self; 3. the self is within the five skandhas; 4. the five skandhas are within the self; and 5. the five skandhas belong to the self), one searches by these five modes yet can never find the self, so, using these five methods to search for afflictions within the defiled mind ( defiled: not pure and clean), they likewise cannot be found.

The two errors of purity and impurity both lack self-nature. Since they originally have no self-nature, how could the afflictions arise in dependence upon them?

The six sense objects—form, sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharmas—are the source of the three poisons.

The nature of the six sense objects—form, sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharmas—is empty and without self-nature. They are like a mirage, a dream, or a city of the gandharvas.

Since the six sense objects themselves have no self-nature, how could purity or impurity exist within them? Purity and impurity are like magically conjured persons and images in a mirror.

Without depending upon the characteristic of purity, there is no characteristic of impurity. Impurity exists in dependence upon purity; therefore, impurity does not exist. (* For if purity were not a condition, how could impurity exist?)

Without depending upon impurity, there is likewise no purity. Because purity exists only in dependence upon impurity, purity therefore does not exist.

If there is no purity, from what could craving arise? And if there is no impurity, why would aversion arise?

To grasp impermanent dharmas as permanent is precisely error. Within emptiness no permanent dharma exists; where, then, is the so-called error of permanence?

If it is claimed that regarding impermanent dharmas as impermanent is not error, then since impermanence does not exist within emptiness, how could there be what is called non-error?

The object of attachment, the one who attaches, attachment itself (the arising of an attached mind), and all dharmas serving as instruments of attachment (* referring to the six sense faculties coming into contact with the six sense objects) all bear the empty and quiescent characteristic of cessation. How, then, could there be attachment?

If no dharma of attachment exists, then when wrong attachment is called error and correct contemplation is called non-error, who (since all is ultimately empty and quiescent, without self-nature) possesses these errors?

Errors do not arise when errors already exist, and when errors do not exist, errors likewise cannot arise. An erroneous person does not produce error, nor can a non-erroneous person produce error. And if even during error no errors arise, you should examine for yourself who it is that gives rise to errors.

How could this proposition stand when errors do not arise? And how could there be an erroneous person when there are no errors?

If permanence, pleasure, self, and purity truly exist, then such permanence, pleasure, self, and purity are not errors.

If permanence, pleasure, self, and purity truly do not exist, then impermanence, suffering, and impurity should likewise not exist.

Thus, when error ceases, ignorance ceases; because ignorance ceases, formations, and so forth, also cease.

If the essential nature of the afflictions is real (if affliction is something truly existent) yet belongs to some possessor (a person, defiled mind, or self), how could it be eradicated? And who could eradicate that essential nature of the afflictions?

If afflictions are false, without self-nature, and belong to no one, how could they be extinguished, and who could extinguish that which has no nature?

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR:

EXAMINATION OF THE FOUR TRUTHS

(The Four Noble Truths, the Four Realities)

If all dharmas are empty (without self-nature), neither arising nor ceasing, then there is no teaching of the Four Noble Truths. If the Four Truths do not exist, then seeing suffering (recognizing the actual suffering of life), abandoning its origin (eliminating the cause of suffering), realizing cessation (realizing the quiescent fruit of nirvana), and cultivating the path do not exist. Because these do not exist, the four fruits of the path do not exist; and because the four fruits do not exist, neither those who have attained them nor those progressing toward attainment exist (the four approaches and four fruits require careful explanation).

If the eight noble persons do not exist, there is no Jewel of the Sangha. Since there is no teaching of the Four Truths, there is also no Jewel of the Dharma; and because there is no Jewel of the Sangha, there is likewise no Jewel of the Buddha. Thus, one who propounds emptiness (absence of nature) destroys the Three Jewels.

The teaching that all dharmas are empty destroys not only the law of cause and effect, wrongdoing and merit, but also all conventional dharmas (* referring to such fundamental principles of law as right and wrong, whether an offense has or has not been committed, and so forth).

In truth, you are presently unable to understand emptiness, the causes and conditions of emptiness, or even the meaning of emptiness; therefore, you have brought distress upon yourself!

For the sake of sentient beings, the Buddhas teach the Dharma in reliance upon the Two Truths: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. One who cannot understand and distinguish the Two Truths (so as to comprehend fully their mutual relationship) cannot understand the true meaning of the profound and subtle teaching of the Buddhas—the Buddhadharma.

Without relying upon conventional truth, ultimate truth cannot be attained; and without attaining ultimate truth, nirvana cannot be realized.

Because their faculties are dull and they cannot correctly contemplate emptiness (accurately seeing that dharmas originally lack self-nature and exist only provisionally through the conjunction of causes and conditions), they injure themselves, like one unskilled in spells for catching snakes who cannot expertly seize venomous serpents.

The Blessed One knew clearly that this Dharma is profound and subtle, not a Dharma within the reach of those with dull faculties; therefore, he was reluctant to teach it.

You claim that I am attached to emptiness and that errors consequently arise for me. In truth, the errors of which you presently speak do not exist at all in emptiness.

All dharmas can be established precisely because of the meaning of emptiness (the fact that dharmas lack self-nature). If the meaning that all dharmas are empty did not exist, no dharma could be established.

You yourself are presently at fault, yet you turn around and ascribe that fault to me. This is like a rider who forgets the very horse he is riding.

If you regard dharmas as certainly and truly possessing self-nature, then you regard (and acknowledge) dharmas as being without causes and conditions.

This means destroying cause and effect, action, the agent, and the act performed, as well as the arising and cessation of all things; all are thereby destroyed.

Dharmas arising from causes and conditions, I declare to be devoid of true existence. That is also a conventional designation, and it is also called the meaning of the Middle Way. No dharma has ever been seen that did not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, there is no dharma whatsoever that is not empty (* all dharmas lack self-nature).

If everything were not empty, there would be no arising or cessation, and consequently the teaching of the Four Noble Truths would not exist.

If suffering did not arise from conditions, how could there be what is called suffering? Suffering signifies impermanence (the meaning of suffering is precisely impermanence), whereas something of fixed nature is not impermanent.

If suffering possessed a definite self-nature, why would it arise from its origin (the cause of suffering)? If this were so, there would be no truth of origin (the origin of suffering), because (if the truth of suffering had a fixed nature) the meaning of emptiness would necessarily be destroyed. (This sentence may be translated: If the truth of suffering had a fixed nature, why would it arise from the truth of origin? Because the meaning of emptiness is denied, the problem arises that there can be no truth of origin.)

If suffering possessed a fixed nature (a definite self-nature), there could certainly be no truth of cessation. By asserting a fixed nature, you thereby destroy the truth of cessation.

If suffering possessed a fixed nature, there could be no cultivation of the path; and if there is a path that can be cultivated, then suffering plainly does not possess a fixed nature.

If the truths of suffering, origin, and cessation do not exist, where could suffering ultimately be led by the cultivated path (the truth of the path) that extinguishes it? (Where could the path capable of utterly eliminating all suffering ultimately lead?)

If suffering certainly possessed a definite self-nature, why was its self-nature not seen before contemplation but seen only now through contemplation? For if suffering truly had a self-nature, there could be no such change or difference (* it would either be seen or unseen both before and afterward).

Likewise, the seeing of suffering, the abandonment of the origin of all suffering, the realization of nirvana, the cultivation of the true Dharma, and the four fruits of the shravakas are all entirely untenable.

The intrinsic nature of those four fruits of the path has never been obtainable. Moreover, if dharmas truly possessed a fixed self-nature (definite, fixed, and unchanging), why could those fruits be attained only now? (* If real, they would already have existed.)

If the four fruits do not exist, there are neither those who attain the fruits nor those progressing toward them. Because the eight noble persons do not exist, the Jewel of the Sangha does not exist.

Since the Four Noble Truths do not exist, the Jewel of the Dharma likewise does not exist. If neither the Jewel of the Dharma nor the Jewel of the Sangha exists, how could the Jewel of the Buddha exist?

You say that a Buddha exists without depending upon the aspiration for bodhi and, conversely, that supreme bodhi (* transcendent awakening) exists without depending upon a Buddha.

If one did not already possess the nature of a Buddha (were not of Buddha-nature), then no matter how earnestly, diligently, and courageously one cultivated the path of bodhi (the path of awakening), one could never realize Buddhahood.

If dharmas were not empty, there would be no one who performed wrongdoing or merit. Then, if they are not empty, what could be performed, since those things (* the agent and the wrongdoing and merit produced) would all possess definite self-nature?

In your view, no resulting retribution arises from wrongdoing and merit. Thus, it is as though you asserted that results of retribution exist entirely apart from wrongdoing and merit.

If you hold that the results of retribution arise from wrongdoing and merit, so that wrongdoing and merit clearly produce their results, why say that they are not empty?

You destroy all dharmas and the meaning of emptiness through causes and conditions (* dharmas arise through a provisional conjunction of causes and conditions and possess no self-nature); this also means destroying all the doctrines and principles of the conventional world that presently exist or have existed.

If the meaning of emptiness is destroyed, there is truly nothing that can be done or brought about. There would be action without acting (action existing though not performed), and one who does not act would nevertheless be called an agent. (* Emptiness exists because causes and conditions combine to form dharmas; because these very dharmas lack self-nature, this is called emptiness. If the meaning of emptiness is destroyed, dharmas would possess definite self-nature.

If dharmas already possessed definite self-nature, no action would be needed to constitute them. Thus, destroying the meaning of emptiness transforms all dharmas into things produced without any act of production and therefore without causes. “Action existing though not performed” means that because dharmas are said to possess self-nature, they already exist and have become fixed, unchanging dharmas without requiring an act to constitute them—that is, without requiring a cause.

“One who does not act is called an agent” means that although an agent may exist, there is no karma produced by an act, yet that person is called an agent. Because, as stated, action exists though not performed, even though there is no agent, there would still be action and karmic retribution.)

If it is firmly asserted that dharmas possess definite self-nature, then all the characteristics of the world become unarisen and unceasing, eternally abiding, and never subject to destruction.

If there were no emptiness, what had not yet been attained could never be attained. There would also be no ending of the afflictions and no complete extinction of suffering.

Therefore, the sutras teach that one who sees dependent origination (* one capable of recognizing that dharmas arising through causes and conditions all lack self-nature) is capable of seeing the Buddha and recognizing the reality of suffering, the origin leading to suffering, the peaceful liberation of cessation, and the path leading to that peaceful liberation.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE:

EXAMINATION OF NIRVANA

If all dharmas are empty, neither arising nor ceasing, then what is abandoned and extinguished that is called nirvana?

If dharmas are not empty, they would neither arise nor cease. Then what is abandoned and extinguished that is called nirvana?

There is no attainment and no reaching (of the realm of nirvana), neither annihilation nor permanence, neither arising nor cessation. What is described in this way is precisely nirvana.

Nirvana is not a conditioned dharma, for what is conditioned bears the characteristics of aging and death. And since ultimately no existent dharma is established, nirvana is free from the characteristics of aging and death.

If nirvana truly existed, nirvana would be conditioned, for absolutely no existent dharma is unconditioned. (* If there were something called the unconditioned, nirvana would immediately be trapped within existence.)

If nirvana truly existed, why would it be called unappropriated (not assuming the characteristics of birth and death)? No existent dharma whatsoever is called existent unless it arises from appropriation (reception and grasping).

Existence is not nirvana; how much less is nonexistence? Since nirvana has no so-called existence, where could its nonexistence be?

If nonexistence (the utter absence of anything) were nirvana, why would it be called unappropriated? There has never been a nonexistent dharma that is called nonexistent without appropriation.

Because causes and conditions are appropriated, there is revolving transmigration through birth and death. Not appropriating causes and conditions is precisely nirvana.

As the Buddha taught in the sutras, both existence and nonexistence (non-existence) are to be abandoned (* also meaning the abandonment of true existence and true nonexistence). Therefore, it is known that nirvana is neither existent nor nonexistent.

If nirvana were the conjunction of existence and nonexistence, then existence and nonexistence themselves would be liberation. This cannot be reasonable.

If nirvana were said to be the combination of existence and nonexistence, then nirvana would not be free from appropriation, for both existence and nonexistence arise from appropriation.

Since it would be constituted by the conjunction of existence and nonexistence, how could it be called nirvana? Nirvana is called unconditioned, whereas existence and nonexistence are conditioned.

How could existence and nonexistence together be nirvana? The two are mutually incompatible and do not have the same basis, just as light and darkness cannot be present simultaneously.

If that which is neither existent nor nonexistent is called nirvana, by what could this neither-existent-nor-nonexistent be distinguished? (* Since it is neither existent nor nonexistent, how could it be distinguished?)

Moreover, if one conceptually distinguishes this as nonexistence (not existent) and that as non-nonexistence (not nonexistent), and on the basis of such distinctions calls it nirvana, then if existence and nonexistence are established, neither-existence nor nonexistence cannot be established. (* Where there is existence, there is not nonexistence; where there is nonexistence, there is not existence. Thus, if existence and nonexistence are established, neither-existence nor nonexistence necessarily cannot be established.)

After the Tathagata’s cessation, it cannot be said that he exists or does not exist; nor can it be said that he both exists and does not exist, or that he neither exists nor does not exist. While the Tathagata is present in the world, it cannot be said that he exists or does not exist; nor can it be said that he both exists and does not exist, or that he neither exists nor does not exist.

Between nirvana and the world there is not the slightest difference. Between the world and nirvana there is likewise not the slightest difference.

In reality, there is no difference whatsoever between the limit of nirvana and the limit of the world; between these two limits there is not the slightest difference.

After the Tathagata’s cessation, views of existence and nonexistence, and so forth; of finitude and so forth; and of permanent, unchanging existence and so forth (* the three groups of twelve views, the sixty-two views, and so forth) rely upon nirvana to give rise to conceptual proliferations concerning future and past lives.

Since all dharmas are empty (without self-nature), how could there be finitude or infinitude; both finitude and infinitude; or neither finitude nor infinitude? How could there be identity and difference? How could there be permanence and impermanence; both permanence and impermanence; or neither permanence nor impermanence?

Dharmas (ultimately empty and quiescent) cannot be reached or grasped. (In ultimate emptiness,) all conceptual proliferations are completely extinguished; there remains neither a person nor a place, and the Buddha has never taught a single word.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX:

EXAMINATION OF THE TWELVE LINKS OF DEPENDENT ORIGINATION

Because sentient beings are obscured by delusion (ignorance), they give rise to the three kinds of karma (three formations: bodily, verbal, and mental). Being impelled by karma (formations), they follow karma and fall into the six destinies (* the six paths or realms: gods, humans, asuras, hell beings, hungry ghosts, and animals).

Conditioned by formations, consciousness assumes a life and body within birth and death in the six destinies. Because consciousness clings and grasps (* consciousness enters the womb and clings to the father’s semen and the mother’s blood to constitute a life), name (mind) and form (matter, body, materiality) develop.

Because name-and-form develop, the six ayatanas (the completed six sense faculties) arise therefrom. Through the conjunction of the six sense faculties, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses, the six contacts arise. Conditioned by the six contacts, the three kinds of feeling immediately arise.

Conditioned by the three feelings, craving arises; conditioned by craving, the four kinds of grasping arise (* grasping at sensual pleasure, grasping at views, grasping at precepts and observances, and grasping at doctrines of self); conditioned by grasping, becoming arises. If one who grasps no longer grasps and clings, that person is liberated and no longer undergoes cyclic birth and death. From becoming comes birth; from birth come aging and death; and from aging and death come sorrow, lamentation, suffering, and distress.

Thus, and so forth, these events all exist as part of the process by which a life develops. Through these twelve links of dependent origination alone, the great mass of the skandhas of suffering is assembled and formed (* the conjunction of skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas—body and mind). What is called birth and death has its source in the formations (karma) created by the ignorant.

The wise (those possessing prajnaparamita wisdom) do not create such things. Therefore, when ignorance ceases, those things—formations, consciousness, and so forth—cannot arise. It is solely because of ignorance that the skandhas of suffering gather and arise; hence, the cessation of ignorance is the complete uprooting of all the suffering of cyclic birth and death.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN:

EXAMINATION OF WRONG VIEWS

The world’s views of permanence, (annihilation), and so forth all depend upon the past. Did a “self,” then, exist or not exist in the past?

Views of finitude and so forth all depend upon the future. Will the self in the future be produced or unproduced?

That a self existed in the past is impossible, for if a self had existed in the past, there would be no need to produce a self in the present.

If it is said that the self is precisely this (* the self is the body of the five skandhas produced in this life), then the body has differing characteristics. Yet if the self is apart from the body, in what separate place does it exist?

Apart from the body, there is no self (apart from existence, nonexistence, body, and self?); this proposition has been established. But if the body itself is regarded as the self, then (because the body is entirely without self) there is likewise no self.

The body alone is not the self, because the characteristics of the body are perpetually arising and ceasing. How, then, could appropriation create an appropriator?

If a self existed apart from the body, this would be unreasonable. For if the self existed without appropriation, such a thing could truly never be found (it has never occurred and has never existed: it is unobtainable).

Moreover, the present self is neither separate from appropriation (the body) nor identical with appropriation. It is not without appropriation, yet it is not the case that there is no self (because of appropriation). This is the definitive meaning.

It is unreasonable to suppose that the self was not produced in the past. It is likewise entirely wrong to suppose that the self in the past was different from the self in the present.

If they were different, then apart from the past self there would still be a present self. Therefore, although the self abided in the past, the present self would arise by itself, entirely separate from the past self.

This would entail annihilation and the total loss of karmic force and its results, for the self of the past would act while the self of this life would receive the result. Thus, innumerable errors would follow!

It is also profoundly mistaken to suppose that the self previously did not exist but now exists. For the self would then be a produced dharma (and a produced dharma is impermanent, arising and ceasing; therefore, if it previously did not exist and subsequently came to exist), it would also be causeless (* not constituted by any cause whatsoever!).

Views that in the past the self existed, did not exist, both existed and did not exist—all such views are entirely incorrect.

Views that the self in the future will be produced or will not be produced entail exactly the same errors as views concerning the self in the past.

If a god is identical with a human being, this falls into the extreme view of permanence, for the god would be unborn (not produced); and what is unborn is permanent.

If a god is something different from a human being, then this entails impermanence. If the god is different from the human being, there is no continuity between them.

If one were half god and half human, this would fall into the two extremes of permanence and impermanence, which is incorrect.

If both permanence and impermanence could be established, then neither permanence nor impermanence should likewise be established.

If it were certain that there is one who comes and certain that there is one who goes, then cyclic birth and death would have no beginning; but in truth, no such thing exists.

If there is presently no permanence, how could there be impermanence, both permanence and impermanence, or neither permanence nor impermanence?

If the world were finite (limited), how could there be a later life? And if the world were infinite (* unlimited), how could there likewise be a later life?

The five skandhas continually succeed one another, like the continuity of the flame of a lamp. Therefore, the world is neither finite nor infinite.

If the former five skandhas were destroyed (and, being destroyed, could not produce the subsequent body of five skandhas), yet the subsequent five skandhas arose without the former five skandhas as their cause, then the world would be finite (* the absence of continuity would constitute finitude and limitation).

If the former five skandhas had not been destroyed, yet the subsequent five skandhas arose without the former skandhas as their cause, then the world would be infinite.

The true Dharma, the teacher of the Dharma, and the listener are all exceedingly difficult to obtain (for the true Dharma transcends speech and thought, being far removed from language and beyond conception; the teacher of Dharma neither speaks nor displays anything, uttering not a sentence and presenting not a meaning; and the listener neither hears nor attains, hearing nothing and having nothing to realize). Therefore, cyclic birth and death is neither finite nor infinite.

It is incorrect to say that the world is half finite and half infinite, or that it is both finite and infinite.

How could the one who appropriates the five skandhas be partly destroyed while another part remains undestroyed? This is entirely unreasonable.

Likewise, how could appropriation be partly destroyed while another part remains undestroyed? This is plainly incorrect.

If being both finite and infinite could be established, then being neither finite nor infinite should likewise be established.

Because all dharmas are originally empty of self-nature, views that the world is permanent, and so forth—regardless of where in space or when in time—by whom could such views be raised?

Now I bow my head in homage to Gautama, the Great Sage and Lord, who, out of compassionate pity, taught this profound and subtle Dharma to eradicate all ignorance and attachment to views.