I humble myself to the Perfect "AwakenedOne", The best of teachers, who taught that Whatever is dependently arisen is Unceasing, unborn, Unannihilated, not permanent, Not coming, not going, Without distinction, without identity, And free from conceptual construction.
Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise. There are four conditions: efficient condition; Percept-object condition; immediate condition; Dominant condition, just so. There is no fifth condition. The essence of entities Is not present in the conditions, and so on. If there is no essence, There can be no otherness-essence. Power to act does not have conditions. There is no power to act without conditions. There are no conditions without power to act. Nor do any have the power to act. These give rise to those, So these are called conditions. As long as those do not come from these, Why are these not non-conditions? For neither an existent nor a non-existent thing Is a condition appropriate. If a thing is non-existent, how could it have a condition? If a thing is already existent, what would a condition do? When neither existents nor Non-existents nor existent non-existents are established, How could one propose a "productive cause?' If there were one, it would be pointless. An existent entity (mental episode) Has no object. Since a mental episode is without an object, How could there be any percept-condition? Since things are not arisen, Cessation is not acceptable. Therefore, an immediate condition is not reasonable. If something has ceased, how could it be a condition? If things did not exist Without essence, The phrase, "When this exists so this will be," Would not be acceptable. In the several or united conditions The effect cannot be found. How could something not in the conditions Come from the conditions? However, if a nonexistent effect Arises from these conditions, Why does it not arise From non-conditions? If the effect's essence is the conditions, But the conditions don't have their own essence, How could an effect whose essence is the conditions Come from something that is essenceless? Therefore, neither with conditions as their essence, Nor with non-conditions as their essence are there any effects. If there are no such effects, How could conditions or non-conditions be evident?
What has been moved is not moving. What has not been moved is not moving. Apart from what has been moved and what has not been moved, Movement cannot be conceived. Where there is change, there is motion. Since there is change in the moving, And not in the moved or not-moved, Motion is in that which is moving. How would it be acceptable For motion to be in the mover? When it is not moving, it is not acceptable To call it a mover. For whomever there is motion in the mover, There could be non-motion Evident in the mover. But having motion follows from being a mover. If motion is in the mover, There would have to be a twofold motion: One in virtue of which it is a mover, And one in virtue of which it moves. If there were a twofold motion, The subject of that motion would be twofold. For without a subject of motion, There cannot be motion. If without a mover It would not be correct to say that there is motion, Then if there were no motion, How could there be a mover? Inasmuch as a real mover does not move, And a non-mover does not move, Apart from a mover and a non-mover, What third thing could move? When without motion, It is unacceptable to call something a mover, How will it be acceptable To say that a mover moves? For him from whose perspective a mover moves, There would be the consequence that Without motion there could be a mover. Because a mover moves. If a mover were to move, There would be a twofold motion: One in virtue of which he is a mover, And one in virtue of which the mover moves. Motion does not begin in what has moved, Nor does it begin in what has not moved, Nor does it begin in what is moving. In what, then, does motion begin? Prior to the beginning of motion, There is no beginning of motion in The going or in the gone. How could there be motion in the not-gone? Since the beginning of motion Cannot be conceived in any way, What gone thing, what going thing, And what non-going thing can be posited? Just as a moving thing is not stationary, A non-moving thing is not stationary. Apart from the moving and the non-moving, What third thing is stationary? If without motion It is not appropriate to posit a mover, How could it be appropriate to say That a moving thing is stationary? One does not halt from moving, Nor from having moved or not having moved. Motion and coming to rest And starting to move are similar. That motion just is the mover itself Is not correct. Nor is it correct that They are completely different. It would follow from The identity of mover and motion That agent and action Are identical. It would follow from A real distinction between motion and mover That there could be a mover without motion And motion without a mover. When neither in identity Nor in difference Can they be established, How can these two be established at all? The motion by means of which a mover is manifest Cannot be the motion by means of which he moves. He does not exist before that motion. So what and where is the thing that moves? A mover does not carry out a different motion From that by means of which he is manifest as a mover. Moreover, in one mover A twofold motion is unacceptable. A really existent mover Doesn't move in any of the three ways. A non-existent mover Doesn't move in any of the three ways. Neither an entity nor a nOn-entity Moves in any of the three ways. So motion, mover and And route are non-existent.
Seeing, hearing, smelling, Tasting, touching, and mind Are the six sense faculties. Their spheres are the visible objects, and so on. That very seeing does not see Itself at all. How can something that cannot see itself See another? The example of fire Cannot elucidate seeing. Along with the moved and not-moved and motion That has been answered. When there is not even the slightest Nonseeing seer, How could it makes sense to say That seeing sees? Seeing itself does not see. Nonseeing itself does not see. Through seeing itself The clear analysis of the seer is understood. Without detachment from vision there is no seer. Nor is there a seer detached from it. If there is no seer How can there be seeing or the seen? Just as the birth of a son is said to occur In dependence on the mother and father, So consciousness is said to arise In dependence on the eye and material form. From the nonexistence of seeing and the seen it follows that The other four faculties of knowledge do not exist. And all the aggregates, and so on, Are the same way. Like the seen, the heard, the smelled, The tasted, and the touched, - The hearer, sound, and so on, And consciousness should be understood.
Apart from the cause of form, Form cannot be conceived. Apart from form, The cause of form is not seen. If apart from the cause of form, there were form, Form would be without cause. But nowhere is there an effect Without a cause. If apart from form There were a cause of form, It would be a cause without an effect. But there are no causes without effects. When form exists, A cause of the arising of form is not tenable. When form is non-existent, A cause of the arising of form is not tenable. Form itself without a cause Is not possible or tenable. Therefore, think about form, but Do not construct theories about form. The assertion that the effect and cause are similar Is not acceptable. The assertion that they are not similar Is also not acceptable. Feelings, discriminations, and dispositions And consciousness and all such things Should be thought of In the same way as material form. When an analysis is made through emptiness, If someone were to offer a reply, That reply will fail, since it will presuppose Exactly what is to be proven. When an explanation is made through emptiness, Whoever would find fault with it Will find no fault, since the criticism will presuppose Exactly what is to be proven.
Prior to a characteristic of space There is not the slightest space. If it arose prior to the characteristic Then it would, absurdly, arise without a characteristic. A thing without a characteristic Has never existed. If nothing lacks a characteristic, Where do characteristics come to be? Neither in the uncharacterized nor in the characterized Does a characteristic arise. Nor does it arise In something different from these two. If characteristics do not appear, Then it is not tenable to posit the characterized object. If the characterized object is not posited, There will be no characteristic either. From this it follows that there is no characterized And no existing characteristic. Nor is there any entity Other than the characterized and the characteristic. If there is no existent thing. Of what will there be nonexistence? Apart from existent and nonexistent things Who knows existence and nonexistence? Therefore, space is not an entity. It is not a nonentity. Not characterized, not without character. The same is true of the other five elements. Fools and reificationists who perceive The existence and nonexistence Of objects Do not see the pacification of objectification.
If prior to desire And without desire there were a desirous one, Desire would depend on him. Desire would exist when there is a desirous one. Were there no desirous one, moreover, Where would desire occur? Whether or not desire or the desirous one exist, The analysis would be the same. Desire and the desirous one Cannot arise together. In that case, desire and the desirous one Would not be mutually contingent. In identity there is no simultaneity. A thing is not simultaneous with itself. But if there is difference, Then how would there be simultaneity? If in identity there were simultaneity, Then it could occur without association. If in difference there were simultaneity, It could occur without association. If in difference there were simultaneity, How could desire and the desirous one, Being different, be established? If they were, they would be simultaneous. If desire and the desirous one Are established as different, Then why would you think That they are simultaneous? Since difference is not established, If you assert that they are simultaneous, Since they are established as simultaneous, Do you also assert that they are different? Since nothing different has been established, If one is asserting simultaneity, Which different thing Do you want to say is simultaneous? Thus desire and the desirous one Cannot be established as simultaneous or not simultaneous. So, like desire, nothing whatever Can be established either as simultaneous or as nonsimultaneous.
If arising were produced, Then it would also have the three characteristics. If arising is not produced, How could the characteristics of the produced exist? If the three, arising, and so on, are separate, They cannot function as the characteristics of the produced. But how could they be joined In one thing simultaneously? If arising, abiding, and ceasing Have characteristics other than those of the produced, There would be an infinite regress. If they don't, they would not be produced. The arising of arising only gives rise To the basic arising. The arising of the basic arising Gives rise to arising. If, as you say, the arising of arising Gives rise to the basic arising, How, according to you, does this, Not arisen from the basic arising, give rise to that? If, as you say, that which is arisen from basic arising Gives rise to the basis, How does that nonarisen basis Give rise to it? If this nonarisen Could give rise to that, Then, as you wish, It will give rise to that which is arising. Just as a butter-lamp Illuminates itself as well as others, So arising gives rise to itself And to other arisen things. In the butter-lamp and its place, There is no darkness. What then does the butter-lamp illuminate? For illumination is the clearing of darkness. If the arising butter-lamp Does not reach darkness, How could that arising butter-lamp Have cleared the darkness? If the illumination of darkness occurs Without the butter-lamp reaching darkness, All of the darkness in the world Should be illuminated. If, when it is illuminated, The butter-lamp illuminates itself and others, Darkness should, without a doubt, Conceal itself and others. How could this arising, being nonarisen. Give rise to itself? And if it is arisen from another, Having arisen, what is the need for another arising? The arisen, the nonarisen, and that which is arising Do not arise in any way at all. Thus they should be understood Just like the gone, the not-gone, and the going. When there is arising but not yet That which is arising, How can we say that that which is arising Depends on this arising? Whatever is dependently arisen, Such a thing is essentially peaceful. Therefore that which is arising and arising itself Are themselves peaceful. If a nonarisen entity Anywhere exists, That entity would have to arise. But if it were nonexistent, what could arise? If this arising Gave rise to that which is arising, By means of what arising Does that arising arise? If another arising gives rise to this one. There would be an infinite regress. If something nonarisen is arisen, Then all things could arise in this way. Neither an existent nor a nonexistent Can be properly said to arise. As it is taught before with "For neither an existent nor a nonexistent." The arising of a ceasing thing Is not tenable. But to say that it is not ceasing Is not tenable for anything. A static existent does not endure. A nonstatic existent does not endure. Stasis does not endure. What nonarisen can endure? The endurance of a ceasing entity Is not tenable. But to say that it is not ceasing Is not tenable for anything. Inasmuch as the nature of all things Is aging and death, Without aging and death, What existents can endure? Stasis cannot endure through itself Or through another stasis. Just as arising cannot arise from itself Or from another arising. The ceasing of what has ceased does not happen. What has not yet ceased does not cease. Nor does that which is ceasing. What nonarisen can cease? The cessation of what is static Is not tenable. Nor is the cessation of Something not static tenable. Being static does not cease Through being static itself. Nor does being static cease Through another instance of being static. When the arising of any entity Is not tenable, Then the cessation of any entity Is not tenable. For an existent thing Cessation is not tenable. A single thing being an entity and A nonentity is not tenable. Moreover, for a nonentity. Cessation would be untenable. Just as a second beheading Cannot be performed. Cessation does not cease by means of itself. Nor does it cease by means of another. Just as arising cannot arise from itself Or from another arising. Since arising, ceasing, and abiding Are not established, there are no compounded things. If all compounded things are unestablished, How could the uncompounded be established? Like a dream, like an illusion, Like a city of scent-bearers, So have arising, abiding, And ceasing been explained.
This existent agent Does not perform an existent action. Nor does some nonexistent agent Perform some nonexistent action. An existent entity has no activity. There would also be action without an agent. An existent entity has no activity. There would also be agent without action. If a nonexistent agent Were to perform a nonexistent action, Then the action would be without a cause And the agent would be without a cause. Without a cause, the effect and Its cause will not occur. Without this, activity and Agent and action are not possible. If activity, and so on, are not possible, Entities and nonentities are not possible. If there are neither entities nor nonentities, Effects cannot arise from them. If there are no effects, liberation and Paths to higher realms will not exist. So all of activity Would be without purpose. An existent and nonexistent agent Does not perform an existent and nonexistent action. Existence and nonexistence cannot pertain to the same thing. For how could they exist together? An actual agent Does not perform a nonactual action. Nor by a nonactual one is an actual one performed. From this, all of those errors would follow. An existent agent Does not perform an action that Is unreal or both real and unreal As we have already agreed. A nonexistent agent Does not perform an action that Is unreal or both real and unreal As we have already agreed. An existent and nonexistent agent does not perform an action that Is unreal or both real and unreal As we have agreed. Action depends upon the agent. The agent itself depends on action. One cannot see any way To establish them differently. From this elimination of agent and action. One should elucidate appropriation in the same way. Through action and agent All remaining things should be understood.
Since sight and hearing, and so on, and Feeling, and so on, exist. He who has and uses them Must exist prior to those, some say. If there were no existent thing. How could seeing, and so on, arise? It follows from this that prior to this, there is an existent thing. How is an entity existing prior to Seeing, hearing, and so on, and The felt, and so on, Itself known? If it can abide Without the seen, and so on, Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it. Someone is disclosed by something. Something is disclosed by someone. Without something how can someone exist? Without someone how can something exist? While prior to all of seeing, and so on. That prior entity doesn't exist, Through seeing, and so on, by another one, That other one becomes disclosed. If prior to all of seeing, and so on, No prior entity exists, How could an entity prior To each seeing exist? If the seer itself is the hearer itself. And the feeler itself, at different times. Prior to each of these he would have to arise. But this makes no sense. If the seer itself is distinct. The hearer is distinct and the feeler is distinct. Then when there is a seer there would also be a hearer, And there would have to be many selves. Seeing and hearing, and so on. And feeling, and so on, And that from which these are arisen: There is no existent there. Seeing and hearing, and so on, And feeling, and so on. If that to which they belong does not exist, they themselves do not exist. For whomever prior to. Simultaneous with, or after seeing, and so on, there is nothing. For such a one, assertions like "it exists" or "it does not exist"— Such conceptions will cease.
If fuel were fire Then agent and action would be one. If fire were different from fuel, Then it could arise without fuel. It would be forever aflame; Flames could be ignited without a cause. Its beginning would be meaningless. In that case, it would be without any action. Since it would not depend on another Ignition would be without a cause. If it were eternally in flames, Starting it would be meaningless. So, if one thinks that That which is burning is the fuel. If it is just this, How is this fuel being burned? If they are different, and if one not yet connected isn't connected, The not yet burned will not be burned. They will not cease. If they do not cease Then it will persist with its own characteristic. Just as a man and a woman Connect to one another as man and woman. So if fire were different from fuel. Fire and fuel would have to be fit for connection. And, if fire and fuel Preclude each other, Then fire being different from fuel, It must still be asserted that they connect. If fire depends on fuel. And fuel depends on fire, On what are fire and fuel established as dependent? Which one is established first? If fire depends on fuel, It would be the establishment of an established fire. And the fuel could be fuel Without any fire. If that on which an entity depends Is established on the basis Of the entity depending on it. What is established in dependence on what? What entity is established through dependence? If it is not established, then how could it depend? However, if it is established merely through dependence, That dependence makes no sense. Fire is not dependent upon fuel. Fire is not independent of fuel. Fuel is not dependent upon fire. Fuel is not independent of fire. Fire does not come from something else, Nor is fire in fuel itself. Moreover, fire and the rest are just like The moved, the not-moved, and the goer. Fuel is not fire. Fire does not arise from anything different from fuel. Fire does not possess fuel. Fuel is not in fire, nor vice versa. Through discussion of fire and fuel, The self and the aggregates, the pot and cloth All together, Without remainder have been explained. I do not think that Those who teach that the self Is the same as or different from the entities Understand the meaning of the doctrine.
When asked about the beginning, The Great Sage said that nothing is known of it. Cyclic existence is without end and beginning. So there is no beginning or end. Where there is no beginning or end, How could there be a middle? It follows that thinking about this in terms of Prior, posterior, and simultaneous is not appropriate. If birth came first, And then old age and death. Then birth would be ageless and deathless. And a deathless one would be born. If birth were to come after, And old age and death first, How could there be a causeless aging and death Of one not born? Birth and age and death Cannot occur at one time. Then what is being born would be dying And both would occur without cause. When the series of the prior, simultaneous, and posterior Is not possible, Why are you led to posit This birth, aging, and death? Not only is cyclic existence itself without beginning, No existent has a beginning: Neither cause and effect; Nor character and characterized. Nor feeling and the feeler; Whatever there is: All entities Are without beginning.
Some say suffering is self-produced, Or produced from another or from both. Or that it arises without a cause. It is not the kind of thing to be produced. If suffering came from itself, Then it would not arise dependently. For those aggregates Arise in dependence on these aggregates. If those were different from these, Or if these were different from those, Suffering could arise from another. These would arise from those others. If suffering were caused by a person himself, Then who is that person — By whom suffering is caused — Who exists distinct from suffering? If suffering comes from another person, Then who is that person — When suffering is given by another — Who exists distinct from suffering? If another person causes suffering, Who is that other one Who bestowed that suffering, Distinct from suffering? When self-caused is not established, How could suffering be caused by another? Whoever caused the suffering of another Must have caused his own suffering. No suffering is self-caused. Nothing causes itself. If another is not self-made, How could suffering be caused by another? If suffering were caused by each, Suffering could be caused by both. Not caused by self or by other, How could suffering be uncaused? Not only does suffering not exist In any of the fourfold ways: No external entity exists In any of the fourfold ways.
The Victorious Conqueror has said that whatever Is deceptive is false. Compounded phenomena are all deceptive. Therefore they are all false. If whatever is deceptive is false, What deceives? The Victorious Conqueror has said about this That emptiness is completely true. All things lack entity-hood, Since change is perceived. There is nothing without entity Because all things have emptiness. If there is no entity-hood, What changes? If there were entity, How could it be correct that something changes? A thing itself does not change. Something different does not change. Because a young man doesn't grow old, And because and an old man doesn't grow old either. If a thing itself changed, Milk itself would be curd. Or curd would have come to be An entity different from milk. If there were even a trifle nonempty, Emptiness itself would be but a trifle. But not even a trifle is nonempty. How could emptiness be an entity? The victorious ones have said That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. For whomever emptiness is a view, That one will accomplish nothing.
The seen, seeing, and the seer: These three — pairwise or All together — Do not connect to one another. Similarly desire, the desirous one, the object of desire. And the remaining afflictions And the remaining sources of perception Are understood in this threefold way. Since different things connect to one another, But in seeing, and so on. There is no difference, They cannot connect. Not only in seeing, and so on, Is there no such difference: When one thing and another are simultaneous. It is also not tenable that there is difference. A different thing depends on a different thing for its difference. Without a different thing, a different thing wouldn't be different. It is not tenable for that which depends on something else To be different from it. If a different thing were different from a different thing, Without a different thing, a different thing could exist. But without that different thing, that different thing does not exist. It follows that it doesn't exist. Difference is not in a different thing. Nor is it in a nondifferent thing. If difference does not exist, Neither different nor identical things exist. That does not connect to itself. Nor do different things connect to one another. Neither connection nor Connected nor connector exist.
Essence arising from Causes and conditions makes no sense. If essence came from causes and conditions, Then it would be fabricated. How could it be appropriate For fabricated essence to come to be? Essence itself is not artificial And does not depend on another. If there is no essence, How can there be difference in entities? The essence of difference in entities Is what is called the entity of difference. Without having essence or otherness-essence, How can there be entities? If there are essences and entities Entities are established. If the entity is not established, A nonentity is not established. An entity that has become different Is a nonentity, people say. Those who see essence and essential difference And entities and nonentities. They do not see The truth taught by the "AwakenedOne". The Victorious One, through knowledge Of reality and unreality, In the Discourse to one of the "AwakenedOne's" listeners, Refuted both "it is" and "it is not." If existence were through essence, Then there would be no nonexistence. A change in essence Could never be tenable. If there is no essence, What could become other? If there is essence, What could become other? To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism. Therefore a wise person Does not say "exists" or "does not exist." "Whatever exists through its essence Cannot be nonexistent" is eternalism. "It existed before but doesn't now" Entails the error of nihilism.
If compounded phenomena transmigrate, They do not transmigrate as permanent. If they are impermanent they do not transmigrate. The same approach applies to sentient beings. If someone transmigrates, Then if, when sought in the fivefold way In the aggregates and in the sense spheres and in the elements, He is not there, what transmigrates? If one transmigrates from grasping to grasping, then One would be nonexistent. Neither existent nor grasping, Who could this transmigrator be? How could compounded phenomena pass into Cessation? That would not be tenable. How could a sentient being pass into Cessation? That would not be tenable. All compounded phenomena, as arising and ceasing things, Are not bound and not released. For this reason a sentient being Is not bound, not released. If grasping were bondage, Then the one who is grasping would not be bound. But one who is not grasping is not bound. In what circumstances will one be bound? If prior to binding There is a bound one, There would be bondage, but there isn't. The rest has been explained by the gone, the not-gone, and the goer. Whoever is bound is not released. Whoever is not bound does not get released. If a bound one were being released, Bondage and release would occur simultaneously. "I, without grasping, will pass beyond sorrow, And I will attain Cessation," one says. Whoever grasps like this Has a great grasping. When you can't bring about Cessation, Nor the purification of cyclic existence, What is cyclic existence, And what is the Cessation you examine?
Self-restraint and benefiting others With a compassionate mind is the Sacred Reality. This is the seed for Fruits in this and future lives. The Unsurpassed Sage has said That actions are either intention or intentional. The varieties of these actions Have been announced in many ways. Of these, what is called "intention" Is mental desire. What is called "intentional" Comprises the physical and verbal. Speech and action and all Kinds of unabandoned and abandoned actions, And resolve As well as Virtuous- and nonvirtuous actions Derived from pleasure, As well as intention and morality: These seven are the kinds of action. If until the time of ripening Action had to remain in place, it would have to be permanent. If it has ceased, then having ceased, How will a fruit arise? As for a continuum, such as the sprout, It comes from a seed. From that arises the fruit. Without a seed, It would not come into being. Since from the seed comes the continuum, and from the continuum comes the fruit, The seed precedes the fruit. Therefore there is neither nonexistence nor permanence. So, in a mental continuum, From a preceding intention A consequent mental state arises. Without this, it would not arise. Since from the intention comes the continuum, And from the continuum the fruit arises, Action precedes the fruit. Therefore there is neither nonexistence nor permanence. The ten pure paths of action Are the method of realizing the Sacred Reality. These fruits of the Sacred Reality in this and other lives Are the five pleasures. If such an analysis were advanced, There would be many great errors. Therefore, this analysis Is not tenable here. I will then explain what is tenable here: The analysis propounded by all "AwakenedOnes", self-conquerors And disciples according to which Action is like an uncancelled promissory note And like a debt. Of the realms it is fourfold. Moreover, its nature is neutral. By abandoning, that is not abandoned. Abandonment occurs through meditation. Therefore, through the nonexpired, The fruit of action arises. If abandonment occurred through abandoning, and If action were destroyed through transformation. The destruction of action, and so on, And other errors would arise. From all these actions in a realm, Whether similar or dissimilar, At the moment of birth Only one will arise. In this visible world. All actions of the two kinds, Each comprising action and the unexpired separately, Will remain while ripening. That fruit, if extinction or death Occurs, ceases. Regarding this, a distinction between the stainless And the stained is drawn. Emptiness and nonannihilation; Cyclic existence and nonpermanence: That action is nonexpiring Is taught by the "AwakenedOne". Because action does not arise. It is seen to be without essence. Because it is not arisen, It follows that it is nonexpiring. If action had an essence. It would, without doubt, be eternal. Action would be uncreated. Because there can be no creation of what is eternal. If an action were uncreated. Fear would arise of encountering something not done. And the error of not preserving One's vows would arise. All conventions would then Be contradicted, without doubt. It would be impossible to draw a distinction Between virtue and evil. Whatever is mature would mature Time and time again. If there were essence, this would follow, Because action would remain in place. While this action has affliction as its nature This affliction is not real in itself. If affliction is not in itself, How can action be real in itself? Action and affliction Are taught to be the conditions that produce bodies. If action and affliction Are empty, what would one say about bodies? Obstructed by ignorance, And consumed by passion, the experiencer Is neither different from the agent Nor identical with it. Since this action Is not arisen from a condition, Nor arisen causelessly, It follows that there is no agent. If there is no action and agent, Where could the fruit of action be? Without a fruit. Where is there an experiencer? Just as the teacher, by magic, Makes a magical illusion, and By that illusion Another illusion is created, In that way are an agent and his action: The agent is like the illusion. The action Is like the illusion's illusion. Afflictions, actions, bodies. Agents and fruits are Like a city of scent-bearers and Like a mirage or a dream.
If the self were the aggregates, It would have arising and ceasing (as properties). If it were different from the aggregates, It would not have the characteristics of the aggregates. If there were no self, Where would the self's (properties) be? From the pacification of the self and what belongs to it, One abstains from grasping onto "I" and "mine." One who does not grasp onto "I" and "mine," That one does not exist. One who does not grasp onto "I" and "mine," He does not perceive. When views of "I" and "mine" are extinguished, Whether with respect to the internal or external, The appropriator ceases. This having ceased, birth ceases. Action and misery having ceased, there is Cessation. Action and misery come from conceptual thought. This comes from mental fabrication. Fabrication ceases through emptiness. That there is a self has been taught, And the doctrine of no-self, By the "AwakenedOnes", as well as the Doctrine of neither self nor nonself. What language expresses is nonexistent. The sphere of thought is nonexistent. Unarisen and unceased, like Cessation Is the nature of things. Everything is real and is not real, Both real and not real, Neither real nor not real. This is Lord "AwakenedOne"'s teaching. Not dependent on another, peaceful and Not fabricated by mental fabrication, Not thought, without distinctions, That is the character of reality (that-ness). Whatever comes into being dependent on another Is not identical to that thing. Nor is it different from it. Therefore it is neither nonexistent in time nor permanent. By the "AwakenedOnes", patrons of the world, This immortal truth is taught: Without identity, without distinction; Not nonexistent in time, not permanent. When the fully enlightened ones do not appear, And when the disciples have disappeared, The wisdom of the self-enlightened ones Will arise completely without a teacher.
If the present and the future Depend on the past, Then the present and the future Would have existed in the past. If the present and the future Did not exist there, How could the present and the future Be dependent upon it? If they are not dependent upon the past, Neither of the two would be established. Therefore neither the present Nor the future would exist. By the same method, The other two divisions — past and future, Upper, lower, middle, and so on,, Unity, and so on, should be understood. A nonstatic time is not grasped. Nothing one could grasp as Stationary time exists. If time is not grasped, how is it known? If time depends on an entity, Then without an entity how could time exist? There is no existent entity. So how can time exist?
If, arising from the combination of Causes and conditions, The effect is in the combination, How could it arise from the combination? If, arising from the combination of Causes and conditions, The effect is not in the combination, How could it arise from the combination? If the effect is in the combination Of causes and conditions, Then it should be grasped in the combination. But it is not grasped in the combination. If the effect is not in the combination Of causes and conditions, Then actual causes and conditions Would be like noncauses and nonconditions. If the cause, in having its effect, Ceased to have its causal status. There would be two kinds of cause: With and without causal status. If the cause, not yet having Produced its effect, ceased, Then having arisen from a ceased cause. The effect would be without a cause. If the effect were to arise Simultaneously with the collection, Then the produced and the producer Would arise simultaneously. If the effect were to arise Prior to the combination. Then, without causes and conditions, The effect would arise causelessly. If, the cause having ceased, the effect Were a complete transformation of the cause, Then a previously arisen cause Would arise again. How can a cause, having ceased and dissolved, Give rise to a produced effect? How can a cause joined with its effect produce it If they persist together? Moreover, if not joined with its cause, What effect can be made to arise? Neither seen nor unseen by causes Are effects produced. There is never a simultaneous connection Of a past effect With a past, a nonarisen, Or an arisen cause. There is never a simultaneous connection Of an arisen effect With a past, a nonarisen, Or an arisen cause. There is never a simultaneous connection Of a nonarisen effect With a past, a nonarisen, Or an arisen cause. Without connecting, How can a cause produce an effect? Where there is connection, How can a cause produce an effect? If the cause is empty of an effect, How can it produce an effect? If the cause is not empty of an effect, How can it produce an effect? A nonempty effect does not arise. The nonempty would not cease. This nonempty would be The nonceased and the nonarisen. How can the empty arise? How can the empty cease? The empty will hence also Be the nonceased and nonarisen. For cause and effect to be identical Is not tenable. For cause and effect to be different Is not tenable. If cause and effect were identical, Produced and producer would be identical. If cause and effect were different. Cause and non-cause would be alike. If an effect had entity-hood, What could have caused it to arise? If an effect had no entity-hood, What could have caused it to arise? If something is not producing an effect, It is not tenable to attribute causality. If it is not tenable to attribute causality, Then of what will the effect be? If the combination Of causes and conditions Is not self-produced. How does it produce an effect? Therefore, not made by combination. And not without a combination can the effect arise. If there is no effect. Where can there be a combination of conditions?
Destruction does not occur without becoming. It does not occur together with it. Becoming does not occur without destruction. It does not occur together with it. How could there be destruction Without becoming? How could there be death without birth? There is no destruction without becoming. How could destruction and becoming Occur simultaneously? Death and birth Do not occur simultaneously. How could there be becoming Without destruction? For impermanence Is never absent from entities. How could destruction And becoming occur simultaneously? Just as birth and death Do not occur simultaneously. How, when things cannot Be established as existing, With, or apart from one another, Can they be established at all? There is no becoming of the disappeared. There is no becoming of the nondisappeared. There is no destruction of the disappeared. There is no destruction of the nondisappeared. When no entities exist, There is no becoming or destruction. Without becoming and destruction, There are no existent entities. It is not tenable for the empty To become or to be destroyed. It is not tenable for the nonempty To become or to be destroyed. It is not tenable That destruction and becoming are identical. It is not tenable That destruction and becoming are different. If you think you see both Destruction and becoming, Then you see destruction and becoming Through impaired vision. An entity does not arise from an entity. An entity does not arise from a nonentity. A nonentity does not arise from a nonentity. A nonentity does not arise from an entity. An entity does not arise from itself. It is not arisen from another. It is not arisen from itself and another. How can it be arisen? If one accepts the existence of entities, Permanence and the view of complete nonexistence follow. For these entities Must be both permanent and impermanent. If one accepts the existence of entities Nonexistence and permanence will not follow. Cyclic existence is the continuous Becoming and destruction of causes and effects. If cyclic existence is the continuous Becoming and destruction of causes and effects, Then from the nonarising of the destroyed Follows the nonexistence of cause. If entities exist with entity-hood, Then their nonexistence would make no sense. But at the time of Cessation, Cyclic existence ceases completely, having been pacified. If the final one has ceased, The existence of a first one makes no sense. If the final one has not ceased, The existence of a first one makes no sense. If when the final one was ceasing, Then the first was arising, The one ceasing would be one. The one arising would be another. If, absurdly, the one arising And the one ceasing were the same, Then whoever is dying with the aggregates Is also arising. Since the series of cyclic existence is not evident In the three times, If it is not in the three times. How could there be a series of cyclic existence?
Neither the aggregates, nor different from the aggregates, The aggregates are not in him, nor is he in the aggregates. The Node does not possess the aggregates. What is the Node? If the "AwakenedOne" depended on the aggregates, He would not exist through an essence. Not existing through an essence, How could he exist through otherness-essence? Whatever is dependent on another entity, Its selfhood is not appropriate. It is not tenable that what lacks a self Could be a Node. If there is no essence. How could there be otherness-essence? Without possessing essence or otherness-essence, What is the Node? If without depending on the aggregates There were a Node, Then now he would be depending on them. Therefore he would exist through dependence. Inasmuch as there is no Node Dependent upon the aggregates, How could something that is not dependent Come to be so? There is no appropriation. There is no appropriator. Without appropriation How can there be a Node? Having been sought in the fivefold way. What, being neither identical nor different, Can be thought to be the Node Through grasping? Whatever grasping there is Does not exist through essence. And when something does not exist through itself. It can never exist through otherness-essence. Thus grasping and grasper Together are empty in every respect. How can an empty Node Be known through the empty? "Empty" should not be asserted. "Nonempty" should not be asserted. Neither both nor neither should be asserted. They are only used nominally. How can the Four propositions of permanent and impermanent, and so on, Be true of the peaceful? How can the Four propositions of finite, infinite, and so on, Be true of the peaceful? One who grasps the view that the Node exists, Having seized the "AwakenedOne", Constructs conceptual fabrications About one who has achieved Cessation. Since he is by nature empty, The thought that the "AwakenedOne" Exists or does not exist After Cessation is not appropriate. Those who develop mental fabrications with regard to the "AwakenedOne", Who has gone beyond all fabrications. As a consequence of those cognitive fabrications, Fail to see the Node. Whatever is the essence of the Node, That is the essence of the world. The Node has no essence. The world is without essence.
Desire, hatred and confusion all Arise from thought, it is said. They all depend on The pleasant, the unpleasant, and errors. Since whatever depends on the pleasant and the unpleasant Does not exist through an essence, The defilements Do not really exist. The self's existence or nonexistence Has in no way been established. Without that, how could the defilements' Existence or nonexistence be established? The defilements are somebody's. But that one has not been established. Without that possessor, The defilements are nobody's. View the defilements as you view your self: They are not in the defiled in the fivefold way. View the defiled as you view your self: It is not in the defilements in the fivefold way. The pleasant, the unpleasant, and the errors Do not exist through essence. Which pleasant, unpleasant, and errors could the defilements depend upon? Form, sound, taste, touch, Smell, and concepts of things: These six Are thought of as the foundation of Desire, hatred, and confusion. Form, sound, taste, touch, Smell, and concepts of things: These six Should be seen as only like a city of the scent-bearers and Like a mirage or a dream. How could the Pleasant and unpleasant arise In those that are like an illusory person And like a reflection? We say that the unpleasant Is dependent upon the pleasant, Since without depending on the pleasant there is none. It follows that the pleasant is not tenable. We say that the pleasant Is dependent upon the unpleasant. Without the unpleasant there wouldn't be any. It follows that the unpleasant is not tenable. Where there is no pleasant, How can there be desire? Where there is no unpleasant, How can there be anger? If to grasp onto the view "The impermanent is permanent" were an error, Since in emptiness there is nothing impermanent, How could that grasping be an error? If to grasp onto the view "The impermanent is permanent" were an error, Why isn't grasping onto the view "In emptiness there is nothing impermanent" an error? That by means of which there is grasping, and the grasping, And the grasper, and all that is grasped: All are being relieved. It follows that there is no grasping. If there is no grasping. Whether erroneous or otherwise, Who will come to be in error? Who will have no error? Error does not develop In one who is in error. Error does not develop In one who is not in error. Error does not develop In one in whom error is arising. In whom does error develop? Examine this on your own! If error is not arisen, How could it come to exist? If error has not arisen, How could one be in error? Since an entity does not arise from itself, Nor from another, Nor from another and from itself. How could one be in error? If the self and the pure, The permanent and the blissful existed, The self, the pure, the permanent, And the blissful would not be deceptive. If the self and the pure, The permanent and the blissful did not exist, The nonself, the impure, the permanent, And suffering would not exist. Thus, through the cessation of error Ignorance ceases. When ignorance ceases The compounded phenomena, and so on, cease. If someone's defilements Existed through his essence, How could they be relinquished? Who could relinquish the existent? If someone's defilements Did not exist through his essence, How could they be relinquished? Who could relinquish the nonexistent?
If all of this is empty, Neither arising nor ceasing, Then for you, it follows that The Four Noble Truths do not exist. If the Four Noble Truths do not exist, Then knowledge, abandonment, Meditation and manifestation Will be completely impossible. If these things do not exist, The four fruits will not arise. Without the four fruits, there will be no attainers of the fruits. Nor will there be the faithful. If so, the spiritual community will not exist. Nor will the eight kinds of person. If the Four Noble Truths do not exist, There will be no true Sacred Reality. If there is no doctrine and spiritual community, How can there be a "AwakenedOne"? If emptiness is conceived in this way, The three jewels are contradicted. Hence you assert that there are no real fruits. And no Sacred Reality. The Sacred Reality itself And the conventional truth Will be contradicted. We say that this understanding of yours Of emptiness and the purpose of emptiness And of the significance of emptiness is incorrect. As a consequence you are harmed by it. The "AwakenedOne"'s teaching of the Sacred Reality Is based on two truths: A truth of worldly convention And an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand The distinction drawn between these two truths Do not understand The "AwakenedOne"'s profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth. The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, Liberation is not achieved. By a misperception of emptiness A person of little intelligence is destroyed. Like a snake incorrectly seized Or like a spell incorrectly cast. For that reason — that the Sacred Reality is Deep and difficult to understand and to learn — The "AwakenedOne"'s mind despaired of Being able to teach it. You have presented fallacious refutations That are not relevant to emptiness. Your confusion about emptiness Does not belong to me. For him to whom emptiness is clear, Everything becomes clear. For him to whom emptiness is not clear, Nothing becomes clear. When you foist on us All of your errors You are like a man who has mounted his horse And has forgotten that very horse. If you perceive the existence of all things In terms of their essence, Then this perception of all things Will be without the perception of causes and conditions. Effects and causes And agent and action And conditions and arising and ceasing And effects will be rendered impossible. Whatever is dependently co-arisen That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way. Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist. Therefore a nonempty thing Does not exist. If all this were nonempty, as in your view, There would be no arising and ceasing. Then the Four Noble Truths Would become nonexistent. If it is not dependently arisen, How could suffering come to be? Suffering has been taught to be impermanent, And so cannot come from its own essence. If something comes from its own essence, How could it ever be arisen? It follows that if one denies emptiness There can be no arising (of suffering). If suffering had an essence, Its cessation would not exist. So if an essence is posited, One denies cessation. If the path had an essence, Cultivation would not be appropriate. If this path is indeed cultivated, It cannot have an essence. If suffering, arising, and Ceasing are nonexistent, By what path could one seek To obtain the cessation of suffering? If nonunderstanding comes to be Through its essence, How will understanding arise? Isn't essence stable? In the same way the activities of Relinquishing, realizing, and meditating And the four fruits Would not be possible. For an essentialist, Since the fruits through their essence Are already unrealized, In what way could one attain them? Without the fruits, there are no attainers of the fruits, Or enterers. From this it follows that The eight kinds of persons do not exist. If these don't exist, there is no spiritual community. From the nonexistence of the Noble Truths Would follow the nonexistence of the true doctrine. If there is no doctrine and no spiritual community, How could a "AwakenedOne" arise? For you, it would follow that a "AwakenedOne" Arises independent of enlightenment. And for you, enlightenment would arise Independent of a "AwakenedOne". For you, one who through his essence Was unenlightened, Even by practicing the path to enlightenment Could not achieve enlightenment. Moreover, one could never perform Right or wrong actions. If this were all nonempty what could one do? That with an essence cannot be produced. For you, from neither right nor wrong actions Would the fruit arise. If the fruit arose from right or wrong actions,, According to you, it wouldn't exist. If, for you, a fruit arose From right or wrong actions, Then, having arisen from right or wrong actions. How could that fruit be nonempty? If dependent arising is denied. Emptiness itself is rejected. This would contradict All of the worldly conventions. If emptiness itself is rejected, No action will be appropriate. There would be action which did not begin, And there would be agent without action. If there is essence, the, whole world Will be unarising, unceasing, And static. The entire phenomenal world Would be immutable. If it (the world) were not empty, Then action would be without profit. The act of ending suffering and Abandoning misery and defilement would not exist. Whoever sees dependent arising Also sees suffering And its arising And its cessation as well as the path.
If all this is empty, Then there is no arising or passing away. By the relinquishing or ceasing of what Does one wish Cessation to arise? If all this is nonempty, Then there is no arising or passing away. By the relinquishing or ceasing of what Does one wish Cessation to arise? Unrelinquished, unattained, Unannihilated, not permanent, Unarisen, unceased: This is how Cessation is described. Cessation is not existent. It would then have the characteristics of age and death. There is no existent entity Without age and death. If Cessation were existent, Cessation would be compounded. A noncompounded existent Does not exist anywhere. If Cessation were existent, How could Cessation be nondependent? A nondependent existent Does not exist anywhere. If Cessation were not existent, How could it be appropriate for it to be nonexistent? Where Cessation is not existent, It cannot be a nonexistent. If Cessation were not existent, How could Cessation be nondependent? Whatever is nondependent Is not nonexistent. That which comes and goes Is dependent and changing. That, when it is not dependent and changing, Is taught to be Cessation. The teacher has spoken of relinquishing Becoming and dissolution. Therefore, it makes sense that Cessation is neither existent nor nonexistent. If Cessation were both Existent and nonexistent, Passing beyond would, impossibly, Be both existent and nonexistent. If Cessation were both Existent and nonexistent, Cessation would not be nondependent. Since it would depend on both of these. How could Cessation Be both existent and nonexistent? Cessation is uncompounded. Both existents and nonexistents are compounded. How could Cessation Be both existent and nonexistent? These two cannot be in the same place. Like light and darkness. Cessation is said to be Neither existent nor nonexistent. If the existent and the nonexistent were established, This would be established. If Cessation is Neither existent nor nonexistent, Then by whom is it expounded "Neither existent nor nonexistent"? Having passed into Cessation, the Victorious Conqueror Is neither said to be existent Nor said to be nonexistent. Neither both nor neither are said. So, when the victorious one abides, he Is neither said to be existent Nor said to be nonexistent. Neither both nor neither are said. There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and Cessation. There is not the slightest difference Between Cessation and cyclic existence. Whatever is the limit of Cessation, That is the limit of cyclic existence. There is not even the slightest difference between them, Or even the subtlest thing. Views that after cessation there is a limit, and so on, And that it is permanent, and so on, Depend upon Cessation, the final limit, And the prior limit. Since all existents are empty, What is finite or infinite? What is finite and infinite? What is neither finite nor infinite? What is identical and what is different? What is permanent and what is impermanent? What is both permanent and impermanent? What is neither? The pacification of all objectification And the pacification of illusion: No Sacred Reality was taught by the "AwakenedOne" At any time, in any place, to any person.
Wrapped in the darkness of ignorance, One performs the three kinds of actions Which as dispositions impel one To continue to future existences. Having dispositions as its conditions, Consciousness enters transmigration. Once consciousness has entered transmigration, Name and form come to be. Once name and form come to be, The six sense spheres come into being. Depending on the six sense spheres, Contact comes into being. That is only dependent On eye and form and apprehension. Thus, depending on name and form, And which produces consciousness — That which is assembled from the three — Eye and form and consciousness, Is contact. From contact Feeling comes to be. Conditioned by feeling is craving. Craving arises because of feeling. When it appears, there is grasping, The four spheres of grasping. When there is grasping, the grasper Comes into existence. If he did not grasp, Then being freed, he would not come into existence. This existence is also the five aggregates. From existence comes birth, Old age and death and misery and Suffering and grief and Confusion and agitation. All these arise as a consequence of birth. Thus this entire mass of suffering Comes into being. The root of cyclic existence is action. Therefore, the wise one does not act. Therefore, the unwise is the agent. The wise one is not because of his insight. With the cessation of ignorance Action will not arise. The cessation of ignorance occurs through Meditation and wisdom. Through the cessation of this and that This and that will not be manifest. The entire mass of suffering Indeed thereby completely ceases.
The views "in the past I was" or "I was not" And the view that the world is permanent, and so on, All of these views Depend on a prior limit. The view "in the future I will become other" or "I will not do so" And that the world is limited, and so on, All of these views Depend on a final limit. To say "I was in the past" Is not tenable. What existed in the past Is not identical to this one. According to you, this self is that, But the appropriator is different. If it is not the appropriator, What is your self? Having shown that there is no self Other than the appropriator, The appropriator should be the self. But it is not your self. Appropriating is not the self. It arises and ceases. How can one accept that Future appropriating is the appropriator? A self that is different From the appropriating is not tenable. If it were different, then in a nonappropriator There should be appropriation. But there isn't. So it is neither different from the appropriating Nor identical to the appropriating. There is no self without appropriation. But it is not true that it does not exist. To say "in the past I wasn't" Would not be tenable. This person is not different From whoever existed in previous times. If this one were different, Then if that one did not exist, I would still exist. If this were so, Without death, one would be born. Annihilation and the exhaustion of action would follow; Different agents' actions Would be experienced by each other. That and other such things would follow. Nothing comes to exist from something that did not exist. From this errors would arise. The self would be produced Or, existing, would be without a cause. So, the views "I existed," "I didn't exist," Both or neither. In the past Are untenable. To say "in the future I will exist or Will not exist," Such a view is like Those involving the past. If a human were a god, On such a view there would be permanence. The god would be unborn. For any permanent thing is unborn. If a human were different from a god, On such a view there would be impermanence. If the human were different from the god, A continuum would not be tenable. If one part were divine and One part were human, It would be both permanent and impermanent. That would be irrational. If it could be established that It is both permanent and impermanent, Then it could be established that It is neither permanent nor impermanent. If anyone had come from anyplace And were then to go someplace, It would follow that cyclic existence was beginningless. This is not the case. If nothing is permanent, What will be impermanent, Permanent and impermanent, Or neither?. If the world were limited, How could there be another world? If the world were unlimited, How could there be another world? Since the continuum of the aggregates Is like the flame of a butter-lamp, It follows that neither its finitude Nor its infinitude makes sense. If the previous were disintegrating And these aggregates, which depend Upon those aggregates, did not arise, Then the world would be finite. If the previous were not disintegrating And these aggregates, which depend Upon those aggregates, did not arise, Then the world would be infinite. If one part were finite and One part were infinite, Then the world would be finite and infinite. This would make no sense. How could one think that One part of the appropriator is destroyed And one part is not destroyed? This position makes no sense. How could one think that One part of the appropriation is destroyed And one part is not destroyed? This position makes no sense. If it could be established that It is both finite and infinite, Then it could be established that It is neither finite nor infinite. So, because all entities are empty, Which views of permanence, and so on, would occur, And to whom, when, why, and about what Would they occur at all? I humble myself to the "AwakenedOne" Who through compassion Taught the true doctrine, Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā by Nāgārjuna).