You are here: BP HOME > TLB > Mūlamadhyamakakārikā > fulltext
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Choose languages

Choose images, etc.

Choose languages
Choose display
  • Enable images
  • Enable footnotes
    • Show all footnotes
    • Minimize footnotes
DiacriticaDiacritica-helpSearch-help
ā ī ū
ñ
ś ź
š č ǰ γ    
Note on the transliteration:
The transliteration system of the BP/TLB is based on the Unicode/UTF-8 system. However, there may be difficulties with some of the letters – particularly on PC/Windows-based systems, but not so much on the Mac. We have chosen the most accepted older and traditional systems of transliteration against, e.g, Wylie for Tibetan, since with Unicode it is possible, in Sanskrit and Tibetan, etc., to represent one sound with one letter in almost all the cases (excepting Sanskrit and Tibetan aspirated letters, and Tibetan tsa, tsha, dza). We thus do not use the Wylie system which widely employs two letters for one sound (ng, ny, sh, zh etc.).
 
Important:
We ask you in particular to note the use of the ’ apostrophe and not the ' representing the avagrāha in Sanskrit, and most important the ’a-chuṅ in Tibetan. On the Mac the ’ is Alt-M.
 
If you cannot find the letters on your key-board, you may click on the link "Diacritica" to access it for your search.

Translator Chinese (A.D. 1018-1058)

Choose specific texts..
    Click to Expand/Collapse Option Complete text
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionTitle
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionPreface
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionChapters I-V
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionChapters VI-X
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionChapters XI-XV
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionChapters XVI-XX
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionChapters XXI-XXV
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionChapters XXVI-XXVII
Click to Expand/Collapse OptionColophon
mūlamadhyamakakārikāḥ 
中論卷第一 
(1a1)|| rgya gar skad du | | pra dzñ’a n’a ma m’u la ma dhy’a ma ka k’a ri ka | bod skad du | | dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa śes rab ces bya ba | 
Herein lie the Root Verses of the Center called “Intelligence”. In the language of India: Prajnanamamulamadhyamakakarika. In the language of Tibet: dBu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam |
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayām āsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam | 
不生亦不滅 不常亦不斷
不一亦不異 不來亦不出
能說是因緣 善滅諸戲論
我稽首禮佛 諸說中第一 
| ’jam dpal gźon nur gyur pa (2)la phyag ’tshal lo |
| gaṅ gis rten ciṅ ’brel par ’byuṅ | | ’gag pa med pa skye med pa |
| chad pa med pa rtag med pa | | ’oṅ ba med pa ’gro med pa |
| tha dad don min don gcig min | | (3)spros pa ñer źi źi bstan pa |
| rdzogs pa’i saṅs rgyas smra rnams kyi | | dam pa de la phyag ’tshal lo | 
I prostrate to the youthful Manjushri.
I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened one who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no identity) to ease fixations. 
na svato nāpi parato na dvābhyāṃ nāpy ahetutaḥ |
utpannā jātu vidyante bhāvāḥ kva cana ke cana ||1|| 
諸法不自生 亦不從他生
不共不無因 是故知無生 
| bdag las ma yin gźan las min | | gñis las ma yin rgyu med min |
| dṅos po gaṅ (4)dag gaṅ na yaṅ | | skye ba nam yaṅ yod ma yin | 
No thing anywhere is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause. 
catvāraḥ pratyayā hetur ārambaṇam anantaram |
tathaivādhipateyaṃ ca pratyayo nāsti pañcamaḥ ||2|| 
如諸法自性 不在於緣中
以無自性故 他性亦復無1  
| rkyen rnam bźi ste rgyu daṅ ni | | dmigs pa daṅ ni de ma thag |
| bdag po yaṅ ni de bźin te | | rkyen lṅa pa ni yod ma yin | 
There are four conditions: Causes, objects, immediate and dominant. There is no fifth. 
na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate |
avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate ||3|| 
因緣次第緣 緣緣增上緣
四緣生諸法 更無第五緣2  
| dṅos po rnams kyi (5)raṅ bźin ni | | rkyen la sogs la yod ma yin |
| bdag gi dṅos po yod min na | | gźan dṅos yod pa ma yin no | 
The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist. 
kriyā na pratyayavatī nāpratyayavatī kriyā |
pratyayā nākriyāvantaḥ kriyāvantaś ca santy uta ||4|| 
果為從緣生 為從非緣生
是緣為有果 是緣為無果 
| bya ba rkyen daṅ ldan pa yin | | rkyen daṅ mi ldan bya ba med |
| bya ba mi ldan rkyen (2a1)ma yin | | bya ba ldan yod ’on te na | 
There is no activity which has conditions. There is no activity which does not have conditions. There are no conditions which do not have activity, and none which do have activity. 
utpadyate pratītyemān itīme pratyayāḥ kila |
yāvan notpadyata ime tāvan nāpratyayāḥ katham ||5|| 
因是法生果 是法名為緣
若是果未生 何不名非緣 
| ’di dag la brten skye bas na | | de phyir ’di dag rkyen ces grag |
| ji srid mi skye de srid du | | ’di dag rkyen min ji ltar min | 
Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not non-conditions? 
naivāsato naiva sataḥ pratyayo ’rthasya yujyate |
asataḥ pratyayaḥ kasya sataś ca pratyayena kim ||6|| 
果先於緣中 有無俱不可
先無為誰緣 先有何用緣 
| med dam yod pa’i don la yaṅ | | rkyen ni ruṅ (2)ba ma yin te |
| med na gaṅ gi rkyen du ’gyur | | yod na rkyen gyis ci źig bya | 
It is impossible for something that either exists or not to have conditions. If it were non-existent, of what would they be the conditions? If it were existent, why would it need conditions? 
na san nāsan na sad asan dharmo nirvartate yadā |
kathaṃ nirvartako hetur evaṃ sati hi yujyate ||7|| 
若果非有生 亦復非無生
亦非有無生 何得言有緣 
| gaṅ tshe chos ni yod pa daṅ | | med daṅ yod med mi ’grub pa |
| ji ltar sgrub byed rgyu źes bya | | de lta yin na mi rigs so | 
When things cannot be established as either existent, non-existent or both, how can one speak of an “establishing cause.” Such would be impossible. 
anārambaṇa evāyaṃ san dharma upadiśyate |
athānārambaṇe dharme kuta ārambaṇaṃ punaḥ ||8|| 
果若未生時 則不應有滅
滅法何能緣 故無次第緣3  
| yod pa’i chos ’di (3)dmigs pa ni | | med pa kho na ñe bar bstan |
| ci ste chos ni dmigs med na | | dmigs pa yod par ga la ’gyur | 
An existent phenomenon is clearly said to have no object at all. If the phenomenon has no object, where can the object exist? 
anutpanneṣu dharmeṣu nirodho nopapadyate |
nānantaram ato yuktaṃ niruddhe pratyayaś ca kaḥ ||9|| 
如諸佛所說 真實微妙法
於此無緣法 云何有緣緣4  
| chos rnams skyes pa ma yin na | | ’gag pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| de phyir de ma thag mi rigs | | ’gags (4)na rkyen yaṅ gaṅ źig yin | 
If phenomena are not born, it is invalid for there to be cessation. Therefore, an immediate [condition] is unreasonable. What, having ceased, can also be a condition? 
bhāvānāṃ niḥsvabhāvānāṃ na sattā vidyate yataḥ |
satīdam asmin bhavatīty etan naivopapadyate ||10|| 
諸法無自性 故無有有相
說有是事故 是事有不然 
| dṅos po raṅ bźin med rnams kyi | | yod pa gaṅ phyir yod min na |
| ’di yod pas na ’di ’byuṅ źes | | bya ba ’di ni ’thad ma yin | 
Because the existence of essence-less things does not exist, it is incorrect to say:“When this exists, that arises.” 
na ca vyastasamasteṣu pratyayeṣv asti tat phalam |
pratyayebhyaḥ kathaṃ tac ca bhaven na pratyayeṣu yat ||11|| 
略廣因緣中 求果不可得
因緣中若無 云何從緣出 
| rkyen rnams so so ’dus pa la | | ’bras bu de ni med pa ñid |
| rkyen (5)rnams la ni gaṅ med pa | | de ni rkyen las ji ltar skye | 
There is no effect at all in the conditions individually or together. How can that which is not in the conditions itself be born from conditions? 
athāsad api tat tebhyaḥ pratyayebhyaḥ pravartate |
apratyayebhyo ’pi kasmān nābhipravartate phalam ||12|| 
若謂緣無果 而從緣中出
是果何不從 非緣中而出 
| ci ste de ni med par yaṅ | | rkyen de dag las skye ’gyur na |
| rkyen ma yin pa dag las kyaṅ | | ci yi phyir na skye mi ’gyur | 
If, although the effect is not there, it is born from those conditions, why is an effect not born from what are not its conditions? 
phalaṃ ca pratyayamayaṃ pratyayāś cāsvayaṃmayāḥ |
phalam asvamayebhyo yat tat pratyayamayaṃ katham ||13|| 
若果從緣生 是緣無自性
從無自性生 何得從緣生 
| ’bras bu rkyen gyi raṅ bźin na | | rkyen rnams bdag gi raṅ (2b1)bźin min |
| bdag dṅos min las ’bras bu gaṅ | | de ni ji ltar rkyen raṅ bźin | 
Effects [are of] the nature of conditions. Conditions do not have own nature. How can those effects of what does not have own nature [be of] the nature of conditions? 
tasmān na pratyayamayaṃ nāpratyayamayaṃ phalam |
saṃvidyate phala_bhāvāt pratyayāpratyayāḥ kutaḥ ||14|| 
果不從緣生 不從非緣生
以果無有故 緣非緣亦無 
| de phyir rkyen gyi raṅ bźin min | | rkyen min raṅ bźin ’bras bu ni |
| yod min ’bras bu med pas na | | rkyen min rkyen du ga la ’gyur | 
Therefore, [it does] not have the nature of conditions, nor is there an effect with the nature of non-conditions. Since there is no effect, what could [be its] non-conditions or conditions? 
pratyayaparīkṣā nāma prathamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀因緣品第一(十六偈) 
| rkyen brtag pa źes bya ba ste | | rab tu byed pa daṅ po’o ||
|| 
Investigation of Conditions 
gataṃ na gamyate tāvad agataṃ naiva gamyate |
gatāgatavinirmuktaṃ gamyamānaṃ na gamyate ||1|| 
已去無有去 未去亦無去
離已去未去 去時亦無去 
(2)re źig soṅ la mi ’gro ste | | ma soṅ ba la’aṅ ’gro ba min | | soṅ daṅ ma soṅ ma gtogs par | | bgom pa śes par mi ’gyur ro | 
Then there is no going in what has gone; there is no going also in what has not [yet] gone. Motion is unknowable apart from what has gone and not [yet] gone. 
ceṣṭā yatra gatis tatra gamyamāne ca sā yataḥ |
na gate nāgate ceṣṭā gamyamāne gatis tataḥ ||2|| 
動處則有去 此中有去時
非已去未去 是故去時去 
| gaṅ na g-yo ba de na ’gro | | de yaṅ gaṅ gi bgom pa la |
| g-yo ba soṅ min ma soṅ min | | de phyir bgom la ’gro ba yod | 
Where there is moving, there there is going. Furthermore, because moving is within motion -- and is neither gone nor not [yet] gone, therefore, there is going within motion. 
gamyamānasya gamanaṃ kathaṃ nāmopapatsyate |
gamyamānaṃ vigamanaṃ yadā naivopapadyate ||3|| 
云何於去時 而當有去法
若離於去法 去時不可得 
| bgom la ’gro ba (3)yin par ni | | ji lta bur na ’thad par ’gyur |
| gaṅ tshe ’gro ba med pa yi | | bgom pa ’thad pa med phyir ro | 
How can going be possible within motion? Because motion that is not going is impossible. 
gamyamānasya gamanaṃ yasya tasya prasajyate |
ṛte gater gamyamānaṃ gamyamānaṃ hi gamyate ||4|| 
若言去時去 是人則有咎
離去有去時 去時獨去故 
| gaṅ gi bgom pa la ’gro ba | | de yi bgom la ’gro med par |
| thal bar ’gyur te gaṅ gi phyir | | bgom la ’gro ba yin phyir ro | 
For whomever there is going within motion, for him it will follow that there [could be] no going within motion, because there is going within motion. (Or, following the structure and wording of v. 10: “To claim that there is going within motion implies that there could be no going within motion, because it is asserted there is going within motion.”) 
gamyamānasya gamane prasaktaṃ gamanadvayam |
yena tad gamyamānaṃ ca yac cātra gamanaṃ punaḥ ||5|| 
若去時有去 則有二種去
一謂為去時 二謂去時去 
| bgom la ’gro ba yod na ni | | (4)’gro ba gñis su thal ’gyur te |
| gaṅ gis de bgom ’gyur ba daṅ | | de la ’gro ba gaṅ yin pa’o | 
If there were going within motion, it would follow that going would be twofold: that by which one becomes someone in motion [in a place] and [that by which one] goes in that [place]. 
dvau gantārau prasajyete prasakte gamanadvaye |
gantāraṃ hi tiraskṛtya gamanaṃ nopapadyate ||6|| 
若有二去法 則有二去者
以離於去者 去法不可得 
| ’gro ba gñis su thal ’gyur na | | ’gro ba po yaṅ gñis su ’gyur |
| gaṅ phyir ’gro po med par ni | | ’gro ba ’thad par mi ’gyur phyir | 
If going were twofold, the goer also would be twofold, because going is impossible without a goer. 
gantāraṃ cet tiraskṛtya gamanaṃ nopapadyate |
gamane ’sati gantātha kuta eva bhaviṣyati ||7|| 
若離於去者 去法不可得
以無去法故 何得有去者 
| gal te ’gro po med gyur na | | ’gro ba (5)’thad par mi ’gyur te |
| ’gro ba med na ’gro ba po | | yod pa ñid du ga la ’gyur | 
If there were no goer, going would be impossible. If there were no going, where could a goer be existent? 
gantā na gacchati tāvad agantā naiva gacchati |
anyo gantur agantuś ca kas tṛtīyo ’tha gacchati ||8|| 
去者則不去 不去者不去
離去不去者 無第三去者 
| re źig ’gro po mi ’gro ste | | ’gro ba po min ’gro ba min |
| ’gro po ’gro po min las gźan | | gsum pa gaṅ źig ’gro bar ’gyur | 
When a goer does not go, a non-goer cannot go; what third one other than a goer and a non-goer could go? 
gantā tāvad gacchatīti katham evopapatsyate |
gamanena vinā gantā yadā naivopapadyate ||9|| 
若言去者去 云何有此義
若離於去法 去者不可得 
| gaṅ tshe ’gro ba med par ni | | ’gro po ’thad par mi ’gyur na |
| (6)re źig ’gro po ’gro’o źes | | ji ltar ’thad pa ñid du ’gyur | 
When a goer is impossible without going, then how is it possible to say: “a goer goes”? 
pakṣo gantā gacchatīti yasya tasya prasajyate |
gamanena vinā gantā gantur gamanam icchataḥ ||10|| 
若去者有去 則有二種去
一謂去者去 二謂去法去 
| gaṅ gi phyogs la ’gro ba po | | ’gro ba de la ’gro med pa’i |
| ’gro po yin par thal ’gyur te | | ’gro po ’gro bar ’dod phyir ro | 
To claim that a goer goes implies that there could be a goer who does not go, because it is asserted that a goer goes. 
gamane dve prasajyete gantā yady uta gacchati |
ganteti cājyate yena gantā san yac ca gacchati ||11|| 
若謂去者去 是人則有咎
離去有去者 說去者有去 
| gal te ’gro po ’gro gyur na | | ’gro ba gñis su thal ’gyur te |
| gaṅ gis ’gro por mṅon (7)pa daṅ | | ’gro por gyur nas gaṅ ’gro ba’o | 
If the goer goes, it would follow that going would be twofold: that which reveals* the goer and that which goes once [he] has become a goer. 
gate nārabhyate gantuṃ gantuṃ nārabhyate ’gate |
nārabhyate gamyamāne gantum ārabhyate kuha ||12|| 
已去中無發 未去中無發
去時中無發 何處當有發 
| soṅ la ’gro ba’i rtsom med de | | ma soṅ ba la’aṅ ’gro rtsom med |
| bgom la rtsom pa yod min na | | gaṅ du ’gro ba rtsom par byed | 
If a beginning of going does not exist in what has gone, [if] a beginning of going does not exist also in what has not [yet] gone [and if] there does not exist a beginning within motion, wherein is a beginning of going made? 
na pūrvaṃ gamanārambhād gamyamānaṃ na vā gatam |
yatrārabhyeta gamanam agate gamanaṃ kutaḥ ||13|| 
未發無去時 亦無有已去
是二應有發 未去何有發 
| ’gro ba rtsom pa’i sṅa rol na | | gaṅ du ’gro ba rtsom ’gyur ba |
| bgom pa med ciṅ soṅ ba med | | ma soṅ (3a1)’gro ba ga la yod | 
Before a beginning of going, there is not any motion or anything which has gone wherein going could begin. How can going exist in what has not [yet] gone? 
gataṃ kiṃ gamyamānaṃ kim agataṃ kiṃ vikalpyate |
adṛśyamāna ārambhe gamanasyaiva sarvathā ||14|| 
無去無未去 亦復無去時
一切無有發 何故而分別 
| ’gro rtsom rnam pa thams cad du | | snaṅ ba med pa ñid yin na |
| soṅ ba ci źig bgom pa ci | | ma soṅ ci źig rnam par brtag | 
If a beginning of going is simply not apparent in any way, examine: what has gone? what is motion? what has not [yet] gone? 
gantā na tiṣṭhati tāvad agantā naiva tiṣṭhati |
anyo gantur agantuś ca kas tṛtīyo ’tha tiṣṭhati ||15|| 
去者則不住 不去者不住
離去不去者 何有第三住 
| re źig ’gro po mi sdod de | | ’gro ba po min sdod pa min |
| ’gro po ’gro po min las gźan | | gsum pa gaṅ źig (2)sdod par ’gyur | 
When a goer does not stay, a non-goer cannot stay; what third one other than a goer and a non-goer could stay? 
gantā tāvat tiṣṭhatīti katham evopapatsyate |
gamanena vinā gantā yadā naivopapadyate ||16|| 
去者若當住 云何有此義
若當離於去 去者不可得 
| gaṅ tshe ’gro ba med par ni | | ’gro po ’thad par mi ’gyur na |
| re źig ’gro po sdod do źes | | ji ltar ’thad pa ñid du ’gyur | 
When a goer is not possible without going, how then is it possible [to say]: “a goer stays.” 
na tiṣṭhati gamyamānān na gatān nāgatād api |
gamanaṃ saṃpravṛttiś ca nivṛttiś ca gateḥ samā ||17|| 
去未去無住 去時亦無住
所有行止法 皆同於去義 
| bgom lam ldog par mi ’gyur te | | soṅ daṅ ma soṅ las kyaṅ min |
| ’gro ba daṅ ni ’jug pa daṅ | | ldog pa yaṅ ni ’gro daṅ (3)mtshuṅs | 
There is no reversal of motion*, nor also of what has gone [and] what has not [yet] gone. [Reversal of] going, engagement [to stay] and reversal [of staying] are similar to going. 
yad eva gamanaṃ gantā sa eveti na yujyate |
anya eva punar gantā gater iti na yujyate ||18|| 
去法即去者 是事則不然
去法異去者 是事亦不然 
| ’gro ba de daṅ ’gro ba po | | de ñid ces kyaṅ byar mi ruṅ |
| ’gro ba daṅ ni ’gro ba po | | gźan ñid ces kyaṅ byar mi ruṅ | 
It is inappropriate to say: “going and a goer are the same.” It is inappropriate to say: “going and a goer are different.” 
yad eva gamanaṃ gantā sa eva hi bhaved yadi |
ekībhāvaḥ prasajyeta kartuḥ karmaṇa eva ca ||19|| 
若謂於去法 即為是去者
作者及作業 是事則為一 
| gal te ’gro ba gaṅ yin pa | | de ñid ’gro po yin gyur na |
| byed pa po daṅ las ñid kyaṅ | | gcig pa ñid du thal bar ’gyur | 
If whatever is going were a goer, it would follow that the actor and the act would be the same too. 
anya eva punar gantā gater yadi vikalpyate |
gamanaṃ syād ṛte gantur gantā syād gamanād ṛte ||20|| 
若謂於去法 有異於去者
離去者有去 離去有去者 
| gal (4)te ’gro daṅ ’gro ba po | | gźan pa ñid du rnam brtag na |
| ’gro po med pa’i ’gro ba daṅ | | ’gro ba med pa’i ’gro por ’gyur | 
If going and a goer were conceived as different, there could be going without a goer and a goer without going. 
ekībhāvena vā siddhir nānābhāvena vā yayoḥ |
na vidyate tayoḥ siddhiḥ kathaṃ nu khalu vidyate ||21|| 
去去者是二 若一異法成
二門俱不成 云何當有成 
| gaṅ dag dṅos po gcig pa daṅ | | dṅos po gźan pa ñid du ni |
| grub par gyur pa yod min na | | de gñis grub pa ji ltar yod | 
If things are not established as the same and as different, how can they be established? 
gatyā yayājyate gantā gatiṃ tāṃ sa na gacchati |
yasmān na gatipūrvo ’sti kaścid kiṃcid dhi gacchati ||22|| 
因去知去者 不能用是去
先無有去法 故無去者去 
| ’gro pa gaṅ gis (5)’gro por mṅon | | ’gro ba de ni de ’gro min |
| gaṅ phyir ’gro ba’i sṅa rol med | | gaṅ źig gaṅ du ’gro bar ’gyur | 
That very going by which a goer is made evident does not [enable a goer to] go. Because there is no [goer] before going, who would be going where? 
gatyā yayājyate gantā tato ’nyāṃ sa na gacchati |
gatī dve nopapadyete yasmād eke tu gantari ||23|| 
因去知去者 不能用異去
於一去者中 不得二去故 
| ’gro ba gaṅ gi ’gro por mṅon | | de las gźan pa de ’gro min |
| gaṅ phyir ’gro po gcig pu la | | ’gro ba gñis su mi ’thad do | 
[A going] which is other than the going by which a goer is made evident does not [enable a goer to] go. Because it is impossible for going to be twofold within a single goer. 
sadbhūto gamanaṃ gantā triprakāraṃ na gacchati |
nāsadbhūto ’pi gamanaṃ triprakāraṃ sa gacchati ||24|| 
決定有去者 不能用三去
不決定去者 亦不用三去 
| ’gro po yin par gyur pa (6)ni | | ’gro rnam gsum du ’gro mi byed |
| ma yin par ni gyur de yaṅ | | ’gro rnam gsum du ’gro mi byed | 
One who is a goer does not go in the three aspects of going. Also one who is not [a goer] does not go in the three aspects of going. 
gamanaṃ sadasadbhūtaḥ triprakāraṃ na gacchati |
tasmād gatiś ca gantā ca gantavyaṃ ca na vidyate ||25|| 
去法定不定 去者不用三
是故去去者 所去處皆無 
| yin daṅ ma yin gyur pa yaṅ | | ’gro rnam gsum du ’gro mi byed |
| de phyir ’gro daṅ ’gro po daṅ | | bgrod par bya ba’aṅ yod ma yin | 
One who is and is not [a goer] also does not go in the three aspects of going. Therefore, going and a goer and also that which is gone over do not exist. 
gatāgataparīkṣaṇaṃ nāma dvitīyaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀去來品第二(二十五偈) 
| ’gro ba daṅ ’oṅ ba brtag pa źes bya ba (7)ste rab tu byed pa gñis pa’o || 
Investigation of Coming and Going 
darśanaṃ śravaṇaṃ ghrāṇaṃ rasanaṃ sparśanaṃ manaḥ |
indriyāṇi ṣaḍ eteṣāṃ draṣṭavyādīni gocaraḥ ||1|| 
眼耳及鼻舌 身意等六情
此眼等六情 行色等六塵 
|| lta daṅ ñan daṅ snom pa daṅ | | myoṅ bar byed daṅ reg byed yid |
| dbaṅ po drug ste de dag gi | | spyod yul blta bar bya la sogs | 
Seeing and hearing and smelling and tasting and touching, mind are the six sense organs; their experienced objects are what-is-seen and so forth. 
svam ātmānaṃ darśanaṃ hi tat tam eva na paśyati |
na paśyati yad ātmānaṃ kathaṃ drakṣyati tat parān ||2|| 
是眼則不能 自見其己體
若不能自見 云何見餘物 
| lta de raṅ gi bdag ñid ni | | de la lta ba ma yin ñid |
| gaṅ źig bdag la mi lta ba | | de dag gźan la ji ltar lta | 
Seeing does not see itself. How can what does not see itself see anything else? 
na paryāpto ’gnidṛṣṭānto darśanasya prasiddhaye |
sadarśanaḥ sa pratyukto gamyamānagatāgataiḥ ||3|| 
火喻則不能 成於眼見法
去未去去時 已總答是事 
| (3b1)lta ba rab tu bsgrub pa’i phyir | | me yi dpes ni nus ma yin |
| soṅ daṅ ma soṅ bsgom pa yis | | de ni lta bcas lan btab po | 
The example of fire is not able to fully establish seeing. It, along with seeing, has been refuted by “gone”, “not gone” and “going.” 
nāpaśyamānaṃ bhavati yadā kiṃ cana darśanam |
darśanaṃ paśyatīty evaṃ katham etat tu yujyate ||4|| 
見若未見時 則不名為見
而言見能見 是事則不然 
| gaṅ tshe cuṅ zad mi lta ba | | lta bar byed pa ma yin no |
| lta bas lta bar byed ces byar | | de ni ji ltar rigs par ’gyur | 
When not seeing the slightest thing, there is no act of seeing. How can it [then] be reasonable to say: “seeing sees”? 
paśyati darśanaṃ naiva naiva paśyaty adarśanam |
vyākhyāto darśanenaiva draṣṭā cāpy avagamyatām ||5|| 
見不能有見 非見亦不見
若已破於見 則為破見者 
| lta ba lta ñid ma (2)yin te | | lta ba min pa mi lta ñid |
| lta ba ñid kyis lta ba po’aṅ | | rnam par bśad par śes par bya | 
Seeing does not see; non-seeing does not see. It should be understood that seeing explains the seer too. 
[tiraskṛtya]1 draṣṭā nāsty atiraskṛtya tiraskṛtya ca darśanam |
draṣṭavyaṃ darśanaṃ ceva draṣṭary asati te kutaḥ ||6|| 
離見不離見 見者不可得
以無見者故 何有見可見 
| ma spaṅs lta po yod min te | | lta ba spaṅs par gyur kyaṅ ṅo |
| lta po med na blta bya daṅ | | lta bde dag ga la yod | 
Without letting go of [seeing] a seer does not exist; in letting go of seeing, there is also [no seer]. If there is no seer, where can there be what-is-seen and seeing? 
pratītya mātāpitarau yathoktaḥ putrasaṃbhavaḥ |
cakṣurūpe pratītyaivam ukto vijñānasaṃbhavaḥ ||7|| 
 
 
Just as it is said that a child emerges in dependence on a father and a mother, likewise it is said that consciousness emerges in dependence upon an eye and a visual form. 
draṣṭavyadarśanābhāvād vijñānādicatuṣṭayam |
nāstīty upādānādīni bhaviṣyanti punaḥ katham ||8|| 
見可見無故 識等四法無
四取等諸緣 云何當得有 
| blta bya lta ba med pa’i phyir | | rnam par śes (3)pa la sogs bźi |
| yod min ñe bar len la sogs | | ji lta bur na yod par ’gyur | 
Because there is no what-is-seen and no seeing, the four such as consciousness do not exist. How can clinging etc. exist? 
vyākhyātaṃ śravaṇaṃ ghrāṇaṃ rasanaṃ sparśanaṃ manaḥ |
darśanenaiva jānīyāc chrotṛśrotavyakādi ca ||9|| 
耳鼻舌身意 聲及聞者等
當知如是義 皆同於上說 
| lta bas ñan daṅ snom pa daṅ | | myoṅ bar byed daṅ reg byed yid |
| ñan pa po daṅ mñan la sogs | | rnam par bśad par śes par bya | 
It should be understood that seeing explains hearing and smelling and tasting and touching, mind, hearer, what is heard, etc. 
cakṣurādīndriyaparīkṣā nāma tṛtīyaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀六情品第三(八偈) 
| dbaṅ po brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa (4)gsum pa’o || 
Investigation of the Sense Organs 
rūpakāraṇanirmuktaṃ na rūpam upalabhyate |
rūpeṇāpi na nirmuktaṃ dṛśyate rūpakāraṇam ||1|| 
若離於色因 色則不可得
若當離於色 色因不可得 
|| gzugs kyi rgyu ni ma gtogs par | | gzugs ni dmigs par mi ’gyur ro |
| gzugs źes bya ba ma gtogs par | | gzugs kyi rgyu yaṅ mi snaṅ ṅo | 
Apart from the cause of form, form is not perceived. Apart from “form”, the cause of form also does not appear. 
rūpakāraṇanirmukte rūpe rūpaṃ prasajyate |
āhetukaṃ na cāsty arthaḥ kaścid āhetukaḥ kva cit ||2|| 
離色因有色 是色則無因
無因而有法 是事則不然 
| gzugs kyi rgyu ni ma gtogs par | | gzugs na gzugs ni rgyu med par |
| thal bar gyur te (5)don gaṅ yaṅ | | rgyu med pa ni gaṅ na’aṅ med | 
If there were form apart from the cause of form, it would follow that form is without cause; there is no object at all that is without cause. 
rūpeṇa tu vinirmuktaṃ yadi syād rūpakāraṇam |
akāryakaṃ kāraṇaṃ syād nāsty akāryaṃ ca kāraṇam ||3|| 
若離色有因 則是無果因
若言無果因 則無有是處 
| gal te gzugs ni ma gtogs par | | gzugs kyi rgyu źig yod na ni |
| ’bras bu med pa’i rgyur ’gyur te | | ’bras bu med pa’i rgyu med do | 
If a cause of form existed apart from form, it would exist as a cause without fruit; causes without fruit do not exist. 
rūpe saty eva rūpasya kāraṇaṃ nopapadyate |
rūpe ’saty eva rūpasya kāraṇaṃ nopapadyate ||4|| 
若已有色者 則不用色因
若無有色者 亦不用色因 
| gzugs yod na yaṅ gzugs kyi ni | | rgyu yaṅ ’thad par mi ’gyur ñid |
| gzugs med (6)na yaṅ gzugs kyi ni | | rgyu yaṅ ’thad par mi ’gyur ñid | 
If form existed, a cause of form would be untenable; if form did not exist, a cause of form would be untenable. 
niṣkāraṇaṃ punā rūpaṃ naiva naivopapadyate |
tasmād rūpagatān kāṃścin na vikalpān vikalpayet ||5|| 
無因而有色 是事終不然
是故有智者 不應分別色 
| rgyu med pa yi gzugs dag ni | | ’thad par mi ruṅ ruṅ min ñid |
| de phyir gzugs kyi rnam par rtog | | ’ga’ yaṅ rnam par brtag mi bya | 
Forms which do not have a cause are not at all tenable. Therefore, do not conceive the concept of form at all. 
na kāraṇasya sadṛśaṃ kāryam ity upapadyate |
na kāraṇasyāsadṛśaṃ kāryam ity upapadyate ||6|| 
若果似於因 是事則不然
果若不似因 是事亦不然 
| ’bras bu rgyu daṅ ’dra ba źes | | bya ba ’thad pa ma yin te |
| ’bras bu rgyu daṅ mi ’dra (7)źes | | bya ba’aṅ ’thad pa ma yin no | 
It is untenable to say, “the fruit is like the cause.” It is also untenable to say, “the fruit is unlike the cause.” 
vedanācittasaṃjñānāṃ saṃskārāṇāṃ ca sarvaśaḥ |
sarveṣām eva bhāvānāṃ rūpeṇaiva samaḥ kramaḥ ||7|| 
受陰及想陰 行陰識陰等
其餘一切法 皆同於色陰 
| tshor daṅ ’du śes ’du byed daṅ | | sems daṅ dṅos po thams cad kyaṅ |
| rnam pa dag ni thams cad du | | gzugs ñid kyis ni rim pa mtshuṅs | 
Feeling and perception, impulses and mind and all things are comparable in every aspect, at every stage with form. 
vigrahe yaḥ parīhāraṃ kṛte śūnyatayā vadet |
sarvaṃ tasyāparihṛtaṃ samaṃ sādhyena jāyate ||8|| 
若人有問者 離空而欲答
是則不成答 俱同於彼疑 
| stoṅ pa ñid kyis brtsad byas te | | gaṅ źig lan ’debs smra byed pa |
| de yis thams cad (4a1)lan btab min | | bsgrub par bya daṅ mtshuṅs par ’gyur | 
When having argued by means of emptiness, everything of that one who objects is not an objection; it is similar to what is to be established . 
vyākhyāne ya upālambhaṃ kṛte śūnyatayā vadet |
sarvaṃ tasyānupālabdhaṃ samaṃ sādhyena jāyate ||9|| 
若人有難問 離空說其過
是不成難問 俱同於彼疑 
| stoṅ pa ñid kyis bśad byas tshe | | gaṅ źig skyon ’dogs smra byed pa |
| de yis thams cad skyon btags min | | bsgrub par bya daṅ mtshuṅs par ’gyur | 
When having explained by means of emptiness, everything of that one who finds fault is not a fault; it is similar to what is to be established. 
skandhaparīkṣā nāma caturthaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀五陰品第四(九偈) 
| phuṅ po brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bźi (2)pa’o || 
Investigation of the Aggregates 
nākāśaṃ vidyate kiṃcit pūrvam ākāśalakṣaṇāt |
alakṣaṇaṃ prasajyeta syāt pūrvaṃ yadi lakṣaṇāt ||1|| 
空相未有時 則無虛空法
若先有虛空 即為是無相 
|| nam mkha’i mtshan ñid sṅa rol na | | nam mkha’ cuṅ zad yod ma yin |
| gal te mtshan las sṅa gyur na | | mtshan ñid med par thal bar ’gyur | 
Not the slightest bit of space exists prior to the characteristics of space. If [space] existed prior to its characteristics, it would follow that it would be without characteristics. 
alakṣaṇo na kaścic ca bhāvaḥ saṃvidyate kva cit |
asaty alakṣaṇe bhāve kramatāṃ kuha lakṣaṇam ||2|| 
是無相之法 一切處無有
於無相法中 相則無所相 
| mtshan ñid med pa’i dṅos po ni | | ’ga’ yaṅ gaṅ na’aṅ yod ma yin |
| mtshan ñid med pa’i dṅos med na | | mtshan (3)ñid gaṅ du ’jug par ’gyur | 
A thing without characteristics does not exist anywhere at all. If a thing without characteristics does not exist, to what do characteristics extend? 
nālakṣaṇe lakṣaṇasya pravṛttir na salakṣaṇe |
salakṣaṇālakṣaṇābhyāṃ nāpy anyatra pravartate ||3|| 
有相無相中 相則無所住
離有相無相 餘處亦不住 
| mtshan ñid med la mtshan ñid ni | | mi ’jug mtshan ñid bcas la min |
| mtshan bcas mtshan ñid med pa las | | gźan la’aṅ ’jug par mi ’gyur ro | 
Characteristics do not extend to that which has no characteristics; nor to what possesses characteristics. They also cannot extend to something other than what either possesses or does not have characteristics. 
lakṣaṇāsaṃpravṛttau ca na lakṣyam upapadyate |
lakṣyasyānupapattau ca lakṣaṇasyāpy asaṃbhavaḥ ||4|| 
相法無有故 可相法亦無
可相法無故 相法亦復無 
| mtshan ñid ’jug pa ma yin na | | mtshan gźi ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| mtshan gźi (4)’thad pa ma yin na | | mtshan ñid kyaṅ ni yod ma yin | 
If characteristics do not extend [to something], something characterized would be impossible. If something characterized is impossible, characteristics too would not exist. 
tasmān na vidyate lakṣyaṃ lakṣaṇaṃ naiva vidyate |
lakṣyalakṣaṇanirmukto naiva bhāvo ’pi vidyate ||5|| 
是故今無相 亦無有可相
離相可相已 更亦無有物 
| de phyir mtshan gźi yod min te | | mtshan ñid yod pa ñid ma yin |
| mtshan gźi mtshan ñid ma gtogs pa’i | | dṅos po yaṅ ni yod ma yin | 
Therefore, something characterized does not exist and characteristics do not exist. There also does not exist a thing which is apart from being something characterized or a characteristic. 
avidyamāne bhāve ca kasyābhāvo bhaviṣyati |
bhāvābhāvavidharmā ca bhāvābhāvāv avaiti kaḥ ||6|| 
若使無有有 云何當有無
有無既已無 知有無者誰 
| dṅos po yod pa ma yin na | | dṅos med gaṅ gi yin par ’gyur | (5)dṅos daṅ dṅos med mi mthun chos | | gaṅ gis dṅos daṅ dṅos med śes | 
If there is not a thing, of what can there be a non-thing? By whom are the opposites thing and non-thing known [as] a thing and a non-thing? 
tasmān na bhāvo nābhāvo na lakṣyaṃ nāpi lakṣaṇam |
ākāśam ākāśasamā dhātavaḥ pañca ye ’pare ||7|| 
是故知虛空 非有亦非無
非相非可相 餘五同虛空 
| de phyir nam mkha’ dṅos po min | | dṅos med ma yin mtshan gźi min |
| mtshan ñid ma yin khams lṅa po | | gźan gaṅ dag kyaṅ nam mkha’ mtshuṅs | 
Therefore, space is not a thing; it is not a non-thing; it is not something characterized; it is not a characteristic. The other five elements too are similar to space. 
astitvaṃ ye tu paśyanti nāstitvaṃ cālpabuddhayaḥ |
bhāvānāṃ te na paśyanti draṣṭavyopaśamaṃ śivam ||8|| 
淺智見諸法 若有若無相
是則不能見 滅見安隱法 
| blo chuṅ gaṅ dag dṅos rnams la | | yod pa (6)ñid daṅ med ñid du |
| lta ba de ni blta bya ba | | ñe bar źi ba źi mi mthoṅ | 
Those of small minds see things as existent and non-existent. They do not behold the utter pacification of what is seen. 
dhātuparīkṣā nāma pañcamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀六種品第五(八偈) 
| khams brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa lṅa pa’o || 
Investigation of the Elements 
rāgād yadi bhavet pūrvaṃ rakto rāgatiraskṛtaḥ |
taṃ pratītya bhaved rāgo rakte rāgo bhavet sati ||1|| 
若離於染法 先自有染者
因是染欲者 應生於染法 
|| gal te ’dod chags sṅa rol na | | ’dod chags med pa’i chags yod na |
| de la brten nas ’dod chags yod | | chags yod ’dod chags (7)yod par ’gyur | 
If a desirous one without desire exists before desire, desire would exist dependent on that [desirous one]. [When] a desirous one exists, desire exists. 
rakte ’sati punā rāgaḥ kuta eva bhaviṣyati |
sati vāsati vā rāge rakte ’py eṣa samaḥ kramaḥ ||2|| 
若無有染者 云何當有染
若有若無染 染者亦如是 
| chags pa yod par ’gyur na’aṅ | | ’dod chags yod par ga la ’gyur |
| chags pa la yaṅ ’dod chags ni | | yod dam med kyaṅ rim pa mtshuṅs | 
If there were no desirous one, how could there be desire? The same follows for the desirous one too: [it depends on] whether desire exists or not. 
sahaiva punar udbhūtir na yuktā rāgaraktayoḥ |
bhavetāṃ rāgaraktau hi nirapekṣau parasparam ||3|| 
染者及染法 俱成則不然
染者染法俱 則無有相待 
| ’dod chags daṅ ni chags pa dag | | lhan cig ñid du skye mi rigs |
| ’di ltar ’dod chags chags pa dag | |(4b1)phan tshun ltos pa med par ’gyur | 
It is not reasonable for desire and the desirous one to arise as co-existent. In this way desire and the desirous one would not be mutually contingent. 
naikatve sahabhāvo ’sti na tenaiva hi tat saha |
pṛthaktve sahabhāvo ’tha kuta eva bhaviṣyati ||4|| 
染者染法一 一法云何合
染者染法異 異法云何合 
| gcig ñid lhan cig ñid med de | | de ñid de daṅ lhan cig min |
| ci ste tha dad ñid yin na | | lhan cig ñid du ji ltar ’gyur | 
Identity has no co-existence: something cannot be co-existent with itself. If there were difference, how could there be co-existence? 
ekatve sahabhāvaś cet syāt sahāyaṃ vināpi saḥ |
pṛthaktve sahabhāvaś cet syāt sahāyaṃ vināpi saḥ ||5|| 
若一有合者 離伴應有合
若異有合者 離伴亦應合 
| gal te gcig pu lhan cig na | | grogs med pa yaṅ de ’gyur ro |
| gal te tha dad lhan cig na | | gogs (2)med par yaṅ der ’gyur ro | 
If the identical were co-existent, [co-existence] would also occur between the unrelated; if the different were co-existent, [co-existence] would also occur between the unrelated. 
pṛthaktve sahabhāvaś ca yadi kiṃ rāgaraktayoḥ |
siddhaḥ pṛthakpṛthagbhāvaḥ sahabhāvo yatas tayoḥ ||6|| 
若異而有合 染染者何事
是二相先異 然後說合相 
| gal te tha dad lhan cig na | | ci go ’dod chags chags pa dag |
| tha dad ñid du grub ’gyur ram | | des na de gñis lhan cig ’gyur | 
If the different were co-existent, how would desire and the desirous one be established as different or, if that were so, [how would] those two be co-existent? 
siddhaḥ pṛthakpṛthagbhāvo yadi vā rāgaraktayoḥ |
sahabhāvaṃ kim artham tu parikalpayase tayoḥ ||7|| 
若染及染者 先各成異相
既已成異相 云何而言合 
| gal te ’dod chags chags pa dag | | tha dad ñid du grub gyur na |
| de dag lhan cig ñid du ni | | ci yi phyir (3)na yoṅs su rtog | 
If desire and the desirous were established as different, because of what could one understand them as co-existent? 
pṛthag na sidhyatīty evaṃ sahabhāvaṃ vikāṅkṣasi |
sahabhāvaprasiddhyarthaṃ pṛthaktvaṃ bhūya icchasi ||8|| 
異相無有成 是故汝欲合
合相竟無成 而復說異相 
| tha dad grub par ma gyur pas | | de phyir lhan cig ’dod byed na |
| lhan cig rab tu grub pa’i phyir | | tha dad ñid du yaṅ ’dod dam | 
If one asserts them to be co-existent because they are not established as different, then because they would be very much established as co-existent, would one not also have to assert them to be different? 
pṛthagbhāvāprasiddheś ca sahabhāvo na sidhyati |
katamasmin pṛthagbhāve sahabhāvaṃ satīcchasi ||9|| 
異相不成故 合相則不成
於何異相中 而欲說合相 
| tha dad dṅos po ma grub pas | | lhan cig dṅos po ’grub mi ’gyur |
| tha dad dṅos po gaṅ yod na | | lhan cig dṅos (4)por ’dod par byed | 
Since different things are not established, co-existent things are not established. If there existed any different things, one could assert them as co-existent things. 
evaṃ raktena rāgasya siddhir na saha nāsaha |
rāgavat sarvadharmāṇāṃ siddhir na saha nāsaha ||10|| 
如是染染者 非合不合成
諸法亦如是 非合不合成 
| de ltar ’dod chags chags pa dag | | lhan cig lhan cig min mi ’grub |
| ’dod chags bźin du chos rnams kun | | lhan cig lhan cig min mi ’grub | 
In that way, desire and the desirous one are not established as co-existent or not co-existent. Like desire, all phenomena are not established as co-existent or not co-existent. 
rāgasaktiparīkṣā nāma ṣaṣṭaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀染染者品第六(十偈) 
| ’dod chags daṅ chags pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa drug pa’o || 
Investigation of Desire and the Desirous One 
yadi saṃskṛta utpādas tatra yuktā trilakṣaṇī |
athāsaṃskṛta utpādaḥ kathaṃ saṃskṛtalakṣaṇam ||1|| 
若生是有為 則應有三相
若生是無為 何名有為相 
|| (5)gal te skye ba ’dus byas na | | de la mtshan ñid gsum ldan ’gyur |
| ci ste skye ba ’dus ma byas | | ji ltar ’dus byas mtshan ñid yin | 
If birth were compounded, it would possess the three characteristics [of a compound]. If birth were uncompounded, how would it be a characteristic of a compound? 
utpādādyās trayo vyastā nālaṃ lakṣaṇakarmaṇi |
saṃskṛtasya samastāḥ syur ekatra katham ekadā ||2|| 
三相若聚散 不能有所相
云何於一處 一時有三相 
| skye la sogs gsum so so yis | | ’dus byas mtshan ñid bya bar ni |
| nus min gcig la dus gcig tu | | ’dus pa yaṅ ni ji ltar (6)ruṅ | 
The three such as birth cannot individually be that which characterises compounds. How is it possible for one at one time to be compounded [of all three]? 
utpādasthitibhaṅgānām anyat saṃskṛtalakṣaṇam |
asti ced anavasthaivaṃ nāsti cet te na saṃskṛtāḥ ||3|| 
若謂生住滅 更有有為相
是即為無窮 無即非有為 
| skye daṅ gnas daṅ ’jig rnams la | | ’dus byas mtshan ñid gźan źig ni |
| gal te yod na thug med ’gyur | | med na de dag ’dus byas min | 
If birth, abiding and perishing had an other characteristic of being compounded, this would be endless. If not, they would not be compounded. 
utpādotpāda utpādo mūlotādasya kevalam |
utpādotādam utpādo maulo janayate punaḥ ||4|| 
生生之所生 生於彼本生
本生之所生 還生於生生 
| skye ba’i skye bas rtsa ba yi | | skye ba ’ba’ źig skyed par byed |
| rtsa ba’i skye bas skye ba yi | | skye ba’aṅ skyed par byed pa (7)yin | 
The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone. The root birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth. 
utpādotāda utpādo mūlotādasya te yadi |
maulenājanitas taṃ te sa kathaṃ janayiṣyati ||5|| 
若謂是生生 能生於本生
生生從本生 何能生本生 
| gal te khyod kyi skye ba’i skyes | | rtsa ba’i skye ba skyed byed na |
| khyod kyi rtsa bas ma bskyed des | | de ni ji ltar skyed par byed | 
If your birth of birth gives birth to the root birth, how does that which is not yet born from your root give birth to that [root birth]? 
sa te maulena janito maulaṃ janayate yadi |
maulaḥ sa tenājanitas tam utpādayate katham ||6|| 
若謂是本生 能生於生生
本生從彼生 何能生生生
若生生生時 能生於本生
生生尚未有 何能生本生 
| gal te khyod kyi rtsa ba yis | | bskyed pa de yis rtsa skyed na |
| des ma bskyed pa’i rtsa ba des | | de ni ji ltar skyed par byed | 
If that which is born from your root birth gives birth to the root, how does that root which is born from that give birth to that [from which it is born]? 
ayam utpādyamānas te kāmam utpādayed imam |
yadīmam utpādayitum ajātaḥ śaknuyād ayam ||7|| 
若本生生時 能生於生生
本生尚未有 何能生生生 
| gal te ma skyes pa de yis | | de (5a1)skyed par ni byed nus na |
| khyod kyi skye bźin pa de yis | | de skyed par ni ’dod la rag | 
If that which has not been born is able to give birth to that, that of yours which is being born should be able to give birth to that. 
pradīpaḥ svaparātmānau saṃprakāśayate yathā |
utpādaḥ svaparātmānāv ubhāv utpādayet tathā ||8|| 
如燈能自照 亦能照於彼
生法亦如是 自生亦生彼 
| ji ltar mar me raṅ daṅ gźan | | snaṅ bar byed pa de bźin du |
| skye ba’aṅ raṅ daṅ gźan gyi dṅos | | gñis ka skyed par byed yin na | 
Just as lamplight illuminates itself and others, likewise birth too gives birth to both itself and the thing of others. 
pradīpe nāndhakāro ’sti yatra cāsau pratiṣṭhitaḥ |
kiṃ prakāśayate dīpaḥ prakāśo hi tamovadhaḥ ||9|| 
燈中自無闇 住處亦無闇
破闇乃名照 無闇則無照 
| mar me daṅ ni gaṅ dag na | | de ’dug pa na (2)mun pa med |
| mar mes ci źig snaṅ bar byed | | mun pa sel bas snaṅ byed yin | 
Wherever lamplight is present there is no darkness. What does lamplight illuminate? It illuminates by dispelling darkness. 
katham utpadyamānena pradīpena tamo hatam |
notadyamāno hi tamaḥ pradīpaḥ prāpnute yadā ||10|| 
云何燈生時 而能破於闇
此燈初生時 不能及於闇 
| gaṅ tshe mar me skye bźin pa | | mun pa daṅ ni phrad med na |
| ji ltar mar me skye bźin pas | | mun pa sel bar byed pa yin | 
If, when lamplight is being generated, it does not encounter darkness, how does the generation of lamplight dispel darkness? 
aprāpyaiva pradīpena yadi vā nihataṃ tamaḥ |
ihasthaḥ sarvalokasthaṃ sa tamo nihaniṣyati ||11|| 
燈若未及闇 而能破闇者
燈在於此間 則破一切闇 
| mar me phrad pa med par yaṅ | | gal te mun pa sel byed na |
| ’jig (3)rten kun na gnas pa’i mun | | ’di na gnas pa ṅes sel ’gyur | 
If darkness is dispelled even though it does not encounter lamplight, this [lamplight] dwelling here would eliminate the darkness that dwells in all the worlds. 
pradīpaḥ svaparātmānau saṃprakāśayate yadi |
tamo ’pi svaparātmānau chādayiṣyaty asaṃśayam ||12|| 
若燈能自照 亦能照於彼
闇亦應自闇 亦能闇於彼 
| mar me raṅ daṅ gźan gyi dṅos | | gal te snaṅ bar byed ’gyur na |
| mun pa’aṅ raṅ daṅ gźan gyi dṅos | | sgrib par ’gyur bar the tshom med | 
If lamplight illuminated itself and the thing of others, darkness too would without doubt obscure itself and the thing of others. 
anutpanno ’yam utpādaḥ svātmānaṃ janayet katham |
athotanno janayate jāte kiṃ janyate punaḥ ||13|| 
此生若未生 云何能自生
若生已自生 生已何用生 
| skye ba ’di ni ma skyes pas | | raṅ gi bdag ñid ji ltar skyed |
| ci ste (4)skyes pas skyed byed na | | skyes na ci źig bskyed du yod | 
How can unborn birth give birth to itself? If the born gives birth, when it has been born, what would be born? 
notpadyamānaṃ notpannaṃ nānutpannaṃ kathaṃ cana |
utpadyate tad ākhyātaṃ gamyamānagatāgataiḥ ||14|| 
生非生已生 亦非未生生
生時亦不生 去來中已答 
| skyes daṅ ma skyes skye bźin pa | | ji lta bur yaṅ mi skyed pa |
| de ni soṅ daṅ ma soṅ daṅ | | bgom pas rnam par bśad pa yin | 
The born and the unborn, the being born do not in any way give birth. That has been explained by the gone, not gone and going. 
utpadyamānam utpattāv idaṃ na kramate yadā |
katham utpadyamānaṃ tu pratītyotattim ucyate ||15|| 
若謂生時生 是事已不成
云何眾緣合 爾時而得生 
| gaṅ tshe skye ba yod pa na | | skye bźin ’di ’byuṅ med pa’i tshe |
| ji ltar skye la brten nas ni | | (5)skye bźin źes ni brjod par bya | 
When being born does not arise in what is born, then how can one say “[it is] being born in dependence on the born”? 
pratītya yad yad bhavati tat tac chāntaṃ svabhāvataḥ |
tasmād utpadyamānaṃ ca śāntam utpattir eva ca ||16|| 
若法眾緣生 即是寂滅性
是故生生時 是二俱寂滅 
| rten ciṅ ’byuṅ ba gaṅ yin pa | | de ni ṅo bo ñid kyis źi |
| de phyir skye bźin ñid daṅ ni | | skye ba yaṅ ni źi ba ñid | 
Whatever is dependently arising, that is by nature pacified. Therefore, being born and what is born too are pacified. 
yadi kaścid anutpanno bhāvaḥ saṃvidyate kva cit |
utpadyeta sa kiṃ tasmin bhāva utpadyate ’sati ||17|| 
若有未生法 說言有生者
此法先已有 更復何用生 
| gal te dṅos po ma skyes pa | | ’ga’ źig gaṅ na yod gyur na |
| de ni skye ’gyur dṅos po de | | med na ci źig skye bar ’gyur | 
If any unborn thing existed anywhere, on being born that [unborn] thing would not exist. If so, what would be born? 
utpadyamānam utpādo yadi cotpādayaty ayam |
utpādayet tam utpādam utpādaḥ katamaḥ punaḥ ||18|| 
若言生時生 是能有所生
何得更有生 而能生是生 
| (6)gal te skye ba de yis ni | | skye bźin pa ni skyed byed na |
| skye ba de ni skye ba lta | | gaṅ źig gis ni skyed par byed | 
If that which has been born gives birth to what is being born, what [other thing] that has been born would be giving birth to that which has been born? 
anya utpādayaty enaṃ yady utpādo ’navasthitiḥ |
athānutpāda utpannaḥ sarvam utpadyatāṃ tathā ||19|| 
若謂更有生 生生則無窮
離生生有生 法皆能自生 
| gal te skye ba gźan źig gis | | de skyed thug pa med par ’gyur |
| ci ste skye ba med skye na | | thams cad de bźin skye bar ’gyur | 
If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would be endless. If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that [i.e. causelessly]. 
sataś ca tāvad utpattir asataś ca na yujyate |
na sataś cāsataś ceti pūrvam evopapāditam ||20|| 
有法不應生 無亦不應生
有無亦不生 此義先已說 
| re śig yod daṅ med pa yaṅ | | skye (7)bar rigs pa ma yin źiṅ |
| yod med ñid kyaṅ ma yin źes | | goṅ du bstan pa ñid yin no | 
Thus it is not reasonable for what exists or does not exist to be born. It has been shown above that there is no existent or non-existent. 
nirudhyamānasyotattir na bhāvasyopapadyate |
yaś cānirudhyamānas tu sa bhāvo nopapadyate ||21|| 
若諸法滅時 是時不應生
法若不滅者 終無有是事 
| dṅos po ’gag bźin ñid la ni | | skye ba ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| gaṅ źig ’gag bźin ma yin pa | | de ni dṅos por mi ’thad do | 
It is not tenable for a thing that is perishing to be born. It is not tenable for that which is not perishing to be a thing. 
na sthitabhāvas_tiṣṭhaty_asthitabhāvo na tiṣṭhati |
na tiṣṭhate tiṣṭhamānaḥ ko ’nutpannaś ca tiṣṭhati ||22|| 
不住法不住 住法亦不住
住時亦不住 無生云何住 
| dṅos po gnas pa mi gnas te | | dṅos po (5b1)mi gnas gnas pa min |
| gnas bźin pa yaṅ mi gnas te | | ma skyes gaṅ źig gnas par ’gyur | 
A thing that has remained does not remain. A thing that has not [yet] remained does not remain. That which is remaining also does not remain. What unborn [thing] can remain? 
sthitir nirudhyamānasya na bhāvasyopapadyate |
yaś cānirudhyamānas tu sa bhāvo nopapadyate ||23|| 
若諸法滅時 是則不應住
法若不滅者 終無有是事 
| dṅos po ’gag bźin ñid la ni | | gnas pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| gaṅ źig ’gag bźin ma yin pa | | de ni dṅos por mi ’thad do | 
It is not possible for a thing that is perishing to remain. It is not possible for that which is not perishing to be a thing. 
jarāmaraṇadharmeṣu sarvabhāveṣu sarvadā |
tiṣṭhanti katame bhāvā ye jarāmaraṇaṃ vinā ||24|| 
所有一切法 皆是老死相
終不見有法 離老死有住 
| dṅos po thams cad dus kun (2)du | | rga daṅ ’chi ba’i chos yin na |
| gaṅ dag rga daṅ ’chi med par | | gnas pa’i dṅos po gaṅ źig yod | 
If all things at all times are aging and dying phenomena, what things are there which could remain without aging and dying? 
sthityānyayā sthiteḥ sthānaṃ tayaiva ca na yujyate |
utpādasya yathotpādo nātmanā na parātmanā ||25|| 
住不自相住 亦不異相住
如生不自生 亦不異相生 
| gnas pa gnas pa gźan daṅ ni | | de ñid kyis kyaṅ gnas mi rigs |
| ji ltar skye ba raṅ daṅ ni | | gźan gyis bskyed pa ma yin bźin | 
It is not reasonable for what remains to remain due to something else that remains or due to itself. This is like how what has been born is not given birth to by itself or another. 
nirudhyate nāniruddhaṃ na niruddhaṃ nirudhyate |
tathā nirudhyamānaṃ ca kim ajātaṃ nirudhyate ||26|| 
法已滅不滅 未滅亦不滅
滅時亦不滅 無生何有滅 
| ’gags pa ’gag par (3)mi ’gyur te | | ma ’gags pa yaṅ ’gag mi ’gyur |
| ’gag bźin pa yaṅ de bźin min | | ma skyes gaṅ źig ’gag par ’gyur | 
What has ceased does not cease. What has not ceased also does not cease. Likewise what is ceasing also does not. What unborn [thing] can cease? 
sthitasya tāvad bhāvasya nirodho nopapadyate |
nāsthitasyāpi bhāvasya nirodha upapadyate ||27|| 
法若有住者 是則不應滅
法若不住者 是亦不應滅 
| re źig dṅos po gnas pa la | | ’gag pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| dṅos po mi gnas pa la yaṅ | | ’gag pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro | 
It is not possible for a thing which has remained to cease. It is also not possible for a thing which has not remained to cease. 
tayaivāvasthayāvasthā na hi saiva nirudhyate |
anyayāvasthayāvasthā na cānyaiva nirudhyate ||28|| 
是法於是時 不於是時滅
是法於異時 不於異時滅 
(4)| gnas skabs de yis gnas skabs ni | | de ñid ’gag pa ñid mi ’gyur | | gnas skabs gźan gyis gnas skabs ni | | gźan yaṅ ’gag pa ñid mi ’gyur | 
A particular state [of something] does not cause that particular state itself to cease. Moreover, another particular state does not cause that particular state to cease. 
yadaiva sarvadharmāṇām utpādo nopapadyate |
tadaivaṃ sarvadharmāṇāṃ nirodho nopapadyate ||29|| 
如一切諸法 生相不可得
以無生相故 即亦無滅相 
| gaṅ tshe chos rnams thams cad kyi | | skye ba ’thad par mi ’gyur pa |
| de tshe chos rnams thams cad kyi | | ’gag (5)pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro | 
When the birth of all phenomena is not possible, then the cessation of all phenomena is not possible. 
sataś ca tāvad bhāvasya nirodho nopapadyate |
ekatve na hi bhāvaś ca nābhāvaś copapadyate ||30|| 
若法是有者 是即無有滅
不應於一法 而有有無相 
| re źig dṅos po yod pa la | | ’gag pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| gcig ñid na ni dṅos po daṅ | | dṅos po med pa ’thad pa med | 
Cessation is not possible in an existent thing. Thingness and nothingness are not possible in one. 
asato ’pi na bhāvasya nirodha upapadyate |
na dvitīyasya śirasaś chedanaṃ vidyate yathā ||31|| 
若法是無者 是即無有滅
譬如第二頭 無故不可斷 
| dṅos po med par gyur pa la’aṅ | | ’gag pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| mgo gñis pa la ji ltar ni | | gcad du (6)med pa de bźin no | 
Cessation is not possible also in what is not a thing. This is similar to how there is no cutting off a second head. [i.e. a person cannot be beheaded twice] 
na svātmanā nirodho ’sti nirodho na parātmanā |
utpādasya yathotādo nātmanā na parātmanā ||32|| 
法不自相滅 他相亦不滅
如自相不生 他相亦不生 
| ’gag pa raṅ gi bdag ñid kyis | | yod min ’gag pa gźan gyis min |
| ji ltar skye ba raṅ daṅ ni | | gźan gyis skyed pa ma yin bźin | 
Cessation does not exist by its own self, nor does cessation [exist] by something else. This is like how what has been born is not given birth to by itself or another 
utpādasthitibhaṅgānām asiddher nāsti saṃskṛtam |
saṃskṛtasyāprasiddhau ca kathaṃ setsyaty asaṃskṛtam ||33|| 
生住滅不成 故無有有為
有為法無故 何得有無為 
| skye daṅ gnas daṅ ’jig pa dag | ma grub phyir na ’dus byas med |
| ’dus byas rab tu ma grub pas | | ’dus ma (7)byas ni ji ltar ’grub | 
Because birth and remaining and perishing are not established, there is no conditioned. Because the conditioned is utterly unestablished, how can the unconditioned be established? 
yathā māyā yathā svapno gandharvanagaraṃ yathā |
tathotpādas tathā sthānaṃ tathā bhaṅga udāhṛtam ||34|| 
如幻亦如夢 如乾闥婆城
所說生住滅 其相亦如是 
| rmi lam ji bźin sgyu ma bźin | | dri za’i groṅ khyer ji bźin du |
| de bźin skye daṅ de bźin gnas | | de bźin du ni ’jig pa gsuṅs | 
Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas, likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught. 
saṃskṛtaparīkṣā nāma saptamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
觀三相品第七(三十五偈) 
| skye ba daṅ gnas pa daṅ ’jig pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bdun pa’o || 
Investigation of Birth, Abiding and Perishing 
sadbhūtaḥ kārakaḥ karma sadbhūtaṃ na karoty ayam |
kārako nāpy asadbhūtaḥ karmāsadbhūtam īhate ||1|| 
決定有作者 不作決定業
決定無作者 不作無定業 
|| byed po yin par gyur pa de | | las (6a1)su gyur pa mi byed do |
| byed po ma yin gyur pa yaṅ | | las su ma gyur mi byed do | 
One who exists as an actor does not do that which exists as an act. One who does not exist as an actor also does not do that which does not exist as an act. 
sadbhūtasya kriyā nāsti karma ca syād akartṛkam |
sadbhūtasya kriyā nāsti kartā ca syād akarmakaḥ ||2|| 
決定業無作 是業無作者
定作者無作 作者亦無業 
| yin par gyur la bya ba med | | byed po med pa’i las su’aṅ ’gyur |
| yin pa’aṅ gyur la bya ba med | | las med byed pa por yaṅ ’gyur | 
One who exists has no activity; [something] would also exist as an act without an actor. One who exists has no activity; [something] would also exist as an actor without an act. 
karoti yady asadbhūto ’sadbhūtaṃ karma kārakaḥ |
ahetukaṃ bhavet karma kartā cāhetuko bhavet ||3|| 
若定有作者 亦定有作業
作者及作業 即墮於無因 
| gal te byed por ma gyur pa | | las su (2)ma gyur byed na ni |
| las la rgyu ni med par ’gyur | | byed pa po yaṅ rgyu med ’gyur | 
If one who does not exist as an actor did that which does not exist as an act, the act would have no cause; the actor too would have no cause. 
hetāv asati kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate |
tadabhāve kriyā kartā kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate ||4|| 
若墮於無因 則無因無果
無作無作者 無所用作法 
| rgyu med na ni ’bras bu daṅ | | rgyu yaṅ ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| de med na ni bya ba daṅ | | byed pa po daṅ byed mi rigs | 
If there were no cause, effect and cause would not be evident. If they were non-existent, activity and agent and doing would not be evident. 
dharmādharmau na vidyete kriyādīnām asaṃbhave |
dharme cāsaty adharme ca phalaṃ tajjaṃ na vidyate ||5|| 
若無作等法 則無有罪福
罪福等無故 罪福報亦無 
| bya ba la sogs mi rigs na | | chos daṅ chos min yod ma yin |
| chos (3)daṅ chos min med na ni | | de las byuṅ ba’i ’bras bu med | 
If activity etc. did not appear, dharma and adharma would not be evident. If dharma and adharma did not exist, there would be no fruit that comes from them. 
phale ’sati na mokṣāya na svargāyopapadyate |
mārgaḥ sarvakriyāṇāṃ ca nairarthakyaṃ prasajyate ||6|| 
若無罪福報 亦無有涅槃
諸可有所作 皆空無有果 
| ’bras bu med na thar pa daṅ | | mtho ris ’gyur pa’i lam mi ’thad |
| bya ba dag ni thams cad kyaṅ | | don med ñid du thal bar ’gyur | 
If there were no fruit, the path of liberation and higher states would not be appropriate. Also it would follow that all activities are meaningless. 
kārakaḥ sadasadbhūtaḥ sadasat kurute na tat |
parasparaviruddhaṃ hi sac cāsac caikataḥ kutaḥ ||7|| 
作者定不定 不能作二業
有無相違故 一處則無二 
| byed pa por gyur ma gyur pa | | gyur ma gyur de mi byed de |
| yin daṅ ma yin (4)gyur cig la | | phan tshun ’gal bas ga la yod | 
One who exists and does not exist as an actor does not do what exists and does not exist [as an act]. Since existence and non-existence are mutually contradictory in one [thing], where can they exist? 
satā ca kriyate nāsan nāsatā kriyate ca sat |
kartrā sarve prasajyante doṣās tatra ta eva hi ||8|| 
 
| byed pa por ni gyur pa yis | | ma gyur las ni mi byed de |
| ma gyur pas kyaṅ gyur mi byed | | ’dir yaṅ skyon der thal bar ’gyur | 
One who exists as an actor does not do an act which is not existent. One who does not exist [as an actor] also does not do what exists [as an act]. Here too faults will follow for one. 
nāsadbhūtaṃ na sadbhūtaḥ sadasadbhūtam eva vā |
karoti kārakaḥ karma pūrvoktair eva hetubhiḥ ||9|| 
有不能作無 無不能作有
若有作作者 其過如先說 
| byed pa por ni gyur pa daṅ | | bcas pa las ni ma gyur daṅ |
| gyur ma gyur pa mi byed de | | gtan (5)tshigs goṅ du bstan phyir ro | 
One who exists as an actor does not do what does not exist as an act and what neither exists or not [as an act], because of what was demonstrated by the proof above. 
nāsadbhūto ’pi sadbhūtaṃ sadasadbhūtam eva vā |
karoti kārakaḥ karma pūrvoktair eva hetubhiḥ ||10|| 
作者不作定 亦不作不定
及定不定業 其過如先說 
| byed pa por ni ma gyur pas | | las ni gyur daṅ bcas pa daṅ |
| gyur ma gyur pa mi byed de | | gtan tshigs goṅ du bstan phyir ro | 
One who does not exist as an actor does not do what exists as an act and what neither exists or not [as an act], because of what was demonstrated by the proof above. 
karoti sadasadbhūto na san nāsac ca kārakaḥ |
karma tat tu vijānīyāt pūrvoktair eva hetubhiḥ ||11|| 
作者定不定 亦定亦不定
不能作於業 其過如先說 
| byed pa por gyur ma gyur ni | | las su gyur daṅ ma gyur pa |
| mi byed ’di yaṅ gtan tshigs ni | | goṅ du bstan pas (6)śes par bya | 
One who neither exists nor does not exist as an actor does not do that which exists and does not exist as an act. Here too this is to be known through the proof demonstrated above. 
pratītya kārakaḥ karma taṃ pratītya ca kārakam |
karma pravartate nānyat paśyāmaḥ siddhikāraṇam ||12|| 
因業有作者 因作者有業
成業義如是 更無有餘事 
| byed pa po las brten byas śiṅ | | las kyaṅ byed po de ñid la |
| brten nas ’byuṅ ba ma gtogs pa | | ’grub pa’i rgyu ni ma mthoṅ ṅo | 
An actor depends on acts and acts too occur in dependence on an actor. Apart from this, one does not see a cause which is established. 
evaṃ vidyād upādānaṃ vyutsargād iti karmaṇaḥ |
kartuś ca karmakartṛbhyāṃ śeṣān bhāvān vibhāvayet ||13|| 
如破作作者 受受者亦爾
及一切諸法 亦應如是破 
| de bźin ñer len śes par bya | | las daṅ byed po bsal phyir ro |
| byed pa po daṅ las dag gis | | dṅos po lhag ma śes (7)par bya | 
Likewise, one should understand clinging, because act and actor are dispelled. Remaining things too should be understood by means of actor and act. 
karmakārakaparīkṣā nāma prakaraṇam aṣṭamaṃ || 
中論觀作作者品第八(十二偈) 
| byed pa po daṅ las brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa brgyad pa’o || 
Investigation of Act and Actor 
darśanaśravaṇādīni vedanādīni cāpy atha |
bhavanti yasya prāg ebhyaḥ so ’stīty eke vadanty uta ||1|| 
眼耳等諸根 苦樂等諸法
誰有如是事 是則名本住 
|| lta daṅ ñan la sogs pa daṅ | | tshor sogs daṅ yaṅ dbaṅ byas pa |
| gaṅ gi yin pa de dag gi | sṅa rol de yod kha cig smra | 
Some say that whatever is involved in seeing, hearing etc. and feeling etc. exists prior to them. 
kathaṃ hy avidyamānasya darśanādi bhaviṣyati |
bhāvasya tasmāt prāg ebhyaḥ so ’sti bhāvo vyavasthitaḥ ||2|| 
若無有本住 誰有眼等法
以是故當知 先已有本住 
| dṅos po yod pa ma yin na | | lta ba la sogs ji ltar ’gyur |
| (6b1)de phyir de dag sṅa rol na | | dṅos po gnas pa de yod do | 
If [that] thing is not evident, how can there be seeing etc? Therefore, the presence [of that] thing [must] exist before them. 
darśanaśravaṇādibhyo vedanādibhya eva ca |
yaḥ prāg vyavasthito bhāvaḥ kena prajñapyate ’tha saḥ ||3|| 
若離眼等根 及苦樂等法
先有本住者 以何而可知 
| lta daṅ ñan la sogs pa daṅ | | tshor ba la sogs ñid kyi ni |
| sṅa rol dṅos po gaṅ gnas pa | | de ni gaṅ gis gdags par bya | 
What configures/makes known that thing which is present before seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc.? 
vināpi darśanādīni yadi cāsau vyavasthitaḥ |
amūny api bhaviṣyanti vinā tena na saṃśayaḥ ||4|| 
若離眼耳等 而有本住者
亦應離本住 而有眼耳等 
| lta ba la sogs med par yaṅ | | gal te de ni gnas gyur na |
| de med par yaṅ de (2)dag ni | | yod par ’gyur bar the tshom med | 
If it were present even without seeing etc., there would be no doubt that they would exist even without it. 
ajyate kenacit kaścit kiṃcit kena cid ajyate |
kutaḥ kiṃcid vinā kaścit kiṃcit kiṃcid vinā kutaḥ ||5|| 
以法知有人 以人知有法
離法何有人 離人何有法 
| ci yis gaṅ źig gsal bar byed | | gaṅ gis ci źig gsal bar byed |
| ci med gaṅ źig ga la yod | | gaṅ med ci źig ga la yod | 
It is illuminated by them; they are illuminated by it. How could it exist without them? How could they exist without it? 
sarvebhyo darśanādibhyaḥ kaścit pūrvo na vidyate |
ajyate darśanādinām anyena punar anyadā ||6|| 
一切眼等根 實無有本住
眼耳等諸根 異相而分別 
| lta la sogs pa thams cad kyi | | sṅa rol gaṅ źig yod pa min |
| lta sogs naṅ (3)nas gźan źig gis | | gźan gyi tshe na gsal bar byed | 
It is not evident prior to the totality of seeing etc. From among seeing etc. a different one illuminates [it] at different times. 
sarvebhyo darśanādibhyo yadi pūrvo na vidyate |
ekaikasmāt kathaṃ pūrvo darśanādeḥ sa vidyate ||7|| 
若眼等諸根 無有本住者
眼等一一根 云何能知塵 
| lta la sogs pa thams cad kyi | | sṅa rol gal te yod min na |
| lta la sogs pa re re yi | | sṅa rol de ni ji ltar yod | 
If it is not evident prior to the totality of seeing etc., how can it be evident prior to [each of them] seeing etc. individually? 
draṣṭā sa eva sa śrotā sa eva yadi vedakaḥ |
ekaikasmād bhavet pūrvam evaṃ caitan na yujyate ||8|| 
見者即聞者 聞者即受者
如是等諸根 則應有本住 
| lta po de ñid ñan po de | | gal te tshor po’aṅ de ñid na |
| re re’i sṅa rol yod gyur na | | de ni (4)de ltar mi rigs so | 
If the seer itself [were] the hearer and the feeler [were] it too, if it existed prior to each, in that way it would not make sense. 
draṣṭānya eva śrotānyo vedako ’nyaḥ punar yadi |
sati syād draṣṭari śrotā bahutvaṃ cātmanāṃ bhavet ||9|| 
若見聞各異 受者亦各異
見時亦應聞 如是則神多 
| gal te lta po gźan ñid la | | ñan pa po gźan tshor gźan na |
| lta po yod tshe ñan por ’gyur | | bdag kyaṅ maṅ po ñid du ’gyur | 
If the seer were different, the hearer different, the feeler different, at the time the seer exists, there would be a hearer. Many selves would come about. 
darśanaśravaṇādīni vedanādīni cāpy atha |
bhavanti yebhyas teṣv eṣa bhūteṣv api na vidyate ||10|| 
眼耳等諸根 苦樂等諸法
所從生諸大 彼大亦無神 
| lta daṅ ñan la sogs pa daṅ | | tshor ba dag la sogs pa daṅ |
| gaṅ las ’gyur ba’i ’byuṅ de la’aṅ | | de ni yod pa ma yin (5)no | 
Also it is not evident in the elements from which seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc. occur. 
darśanaśravaṇādīni vedanādīni cāpy atha |
na vidyate ced yasya sa na vidyanta imāny api ||11|| 
若眼耳等根 苦樂等諸法
無有本住者 眼等亦應無 
| lta daṅ ñan la sogs pa daṅ | | tshor ba dag la sogs pa yaṅ |
| gaṅ gi yin pa gal te med | | de dag kyaṅ ni yod ma yin | 
If that to which seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc. belong is not evident, they too could not be evident. 
prāk ca yo darśanādibhyaḥ sāṃprataṃ cordhvam eva ca |
na vidyate ’sti nāstīti nivṛttās tatra kalpanāḥ ||12|| 
眼等無本住 今後亦復無
以三世無故 無有無分別 
| gaṅ źig lta la sogs pa yi | | sṅa rol da lta phyi na med |
| de la yod do med do źes | | rtog pa dag ni ldog par ’gyur | 
Reject the concepts “it exists,” “it doesn’t exist” about that which is not evident prior to, now or after seeing etc. 
pūrvaparīkṣā nāma navamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀本住品第九(十二偈) 
| sṅa rol na gnas pa (6)brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa dgu pa’o || 
Investigation of the Presence of Something Prior 
yad indhanaṃ sa ced agnir ekatvaṃ kartṛkarmaṇoḥ |
anyaś ced indhanād agnir indhanād apy ṛte bhavet ||1|| 
若燃是可燃 作作者則一
若燃異可燃 離可燃有燃 
|| bud śiṅ gaṅ de me yin na | | byed pa po daṅ las gcig ’gyur |
| gal te śiṅ las me gźan na | | śiṅ med par yaṅ ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | 
If firewood were fire, actor and act would be one. If fire were other than wood, it would occur even without wood. 
nityapradīpta eva syād apradīpanahetukaḥ |
punarārambhavaiyarthyam evaṃ cākarmakaḥ sati ||2|| 
如是常應燃 不因可燃生
則無燃火功 亦名無作火 
| rtag tu ’bar ba ñid du ’gyur | | ’bar byed rgyu las mi ’byuṅ źiṅ |
| rtsom pa don med ñid (7)du ’gyur | | de lta yin na las kyaṅ med | 
[Fire] would burn permanently and would not arise from causes for burning. Starting [a fire] would be meaningless. If it were like that, there would also be no act. 
paratra nirapekṣatvād apradīpanahetukaḥ |
punarārambhavaiyarthyaṃ nityadīptaḥ prasajyate ||3|| 
燃不待可燃 則不從緣生
火若常燃者 人功則應空 
| gźan la ltos pa med pa’i phyir | | ’bar bar byed rgyu las mi ’byuṅ |
| rtag tu ’bar ba yin na ni | | rtsom pa don med ñid du ’gyur | 
Because [fire] does not depend on anything else, it would not arise from causes for burning. If it burned permanently, starting it would be meaningless. 
tatraitat syād idhyamānam indhanaṃ bhavatīti cet |
kenedhyatām indhanaṃ tat tāvanmātram idaṃ yadā ||4|| 
若汝謂燃時 名為可燃者
爾時但有薪 何物燃可燃 
| de la gal te ’di sñam du | | sreg bźin bud śiṅ yin sems na |
| gaṅ tshe de tsam de yin na | | gaṅ gis (7a1)bud śiṅ de sreg byed | 
Concerning this, if one thinks that while burning it is firewood, if it is such only at that time, by what could that firewood be ignited? 
anyo na prāpsyate ’prapto na dhakṣyaty adahan punaḥ |
na nirvāsyaty anirvāṇaḥ sthāsyate vā svaliṅgavān ||5|| 
若異則不至 不至則不燒
不燒則不滅 不滅則常住 
| gźan phyir mi phrad phrad med na | | sreg par mi ’gyur mi sreg na |
| ’chi bar mi ’gyur mi ’chi na | | raṅ rtags daṅ yaṅ ldan par gnas | 
Because [fire] is other, it would not connect; if it did not connect, it would not ignite; if it did not ignite, it would not die; if it did not die, it would also remain in possession of its own characteristic. 
anya evendhanād agnir indhanaṃ prāpnuyād yadi |
strī saṃprāpnoti puruṣaṃ puruṣaś ca striyaṃ yathā ||6|| 
燃與可燃異 而能至可燃
如此至彼人 彼人至此人 
| ji ltar bud med skyes pa daṅ | | skyes pa’aṅ bud med phrad pa bźin |
| gal te śiṅ las me (2)gźan na | | śiṅ daṅ phrad du ruṅ bar ’gyur | 
Just as a woman connects with a man and a man too with a woman, although fire is other than wood, it is fit to connect with wood. 
anya evendhanād agnir indhanaṃ kāmam āpnuyāt |
agnīndhane yadi syātām anyo’nyena tiraskṛte ||7|| 
若謂燃可燃 二俱相離者
如是燃則能 至於彼可燃 
| gal te me daṅ śiṅ dag ni | | gcig gis gcig ni bsal gyur na |
| śiṅ las me gźan ñid yin yaṅ | | śiṅ daṅ phrad par ’dod la rag | 
If fire and wood eliminated each other, even though fire is something other than wood, it would have to connect with wood. 
yadīndhanam apekṣyāgnir apekṣyāgniṃ yadīndhanam |
katarat pūrvaniṣpannaṃ yad apekṣyāgnir indhanam ||8|| 
若因可燃燃 因燃有可燃
先定有何法 而有燃可燃 
| gal te śiṅ ltos me yin la | | gal te me ltos śiṅ yin na |
| gaṅ ltos me (3)daṅ śiṅ ’gyur ba | | daṅ por grub pa gaṅ źig yin | 
If fire were dependent on wood and wood were dependent on fire, of what becomes fire and wood dependently, which would be established first? 
yadīndhanam apekṣyāgnir agneḥ siddhasya sādhanam |
evaṃ satīndhanaṃ cāpi bhaviṣyati niragnikam ||9|| 
若因可燃燃 則燃成復成
是為可燃中 則為無有燃 
| gal te śiṅ ltos me yin na | | me grub pa la sgrub par ’gyur |
| bud par bya ba’i śiṅ la yaṅ | | me med par ni ’gyur pa yin | 
If fire were dependent on wood, [already] established fire would be established [again]. Firewood also would be [such] even without fire. 
yo ’pekṣya sidhyate bhāvas tam evāpekṣya sidhyati |
yadi yo ’pekṣitavyaḥ sa sidhyatāṃ kam apekṣya kaḥ ||10|| 
若法因待成 是法還成待
今則無因待 亦無所成法 
| gal te dṅos po gaṅ ltos ’grub | | de ñid la yaṅ ltos nas ni |
| ltos bya gaṅ (4)yin de ’grub na | | gaṅ la ltos nas gaṅ źig ’grub | 
If a thing (A) is established dependently (on B), [but] if what it depends upon (B) is established also in dependence on that very thing (A), what would be established in dependence on what? 
yo ’pekṣya sidhyate bhāvaḥ so ’siddho ’pekṣate katham |
athāpy apekṣate siddhas tv apekṣāsya na yujyate ||11|| 
若法有待成 未成云何待
若成已有待 成已何用待 
| dṅos po ltos grub gaṅ yin pa | | de ma grub na ji ltar ltos |
| ci ste grub pa ltos śe na | | de ni ltos par mi rigs so | 
How can a thing (A) which is established dependently (on B) be dependent (on B) when it (A) is not established? If one asks, “how can establishment be dependent?” It is not reasonable for it (A) to be dependent. 
apekṣyendhanam agnir na nānapekṣyāgnir indhanam |
apekṣyendhanam agniṃ na nānapekṣyāgnim indhanam ||12|| 
因可燃無燃 不因亦無燃
因燃無可燃 不因無可燃 
| śiṅ la ltos pa’i me med de | | śiṅ la ma ltos me yaṅ med |
| me la ltos pa’i śiṅ med de | | (5)me la ma ltos śiṅ yaṅ med | 
There is no fire that is dependent on wood; there is also no fire that is not dependent on wood. There is no wood that is dependent on fire; there is also no wood that is not dependent on fire. 
āgacchaty anyato nāgnir indhane ’gnir na vidyate |
atrendhane śeṣam uktaṃ gamyamānagatāgataiḥ ||13|| 
燃不餘處來 燃處亦無燃
可燃亦如是 餘如去來說 
| me ni gźan las mi ’oṅ ste | | śiṅ la’aṅ me ni yod ma yin |
| de bźin śiṅ gi lhag ma ni | | soṅ daṅ ma soṅ bgom pas bstan | 
Fire does not come from something else; fire also does not exist in wood. Likewise, the remainder of wood has been shown by gone, not-gone and going. 
indhanaṃ punar agnir na nāgnir anyatra cendhanāt |
nāgnir indhanavān nāgnāv indhanāni na teṣu saḥ ||14|| 
可燃即非然 離可燃無燃
燃無有可燃 燃中無可燃 
| śiṅ ñid me ni ma yin te | | śiṅ las gźan la me yaṅ med |
| me ni śiṅ daṅ ldan ma yin | | me (6)la śiṅ med der de med | 
Wood itself is not fire; fire is also not something other than wood. Fire does not possess wood; wood does not exist in fire; that (fire) does not exist in it. 
agnīndhanābhyāṃ vyākhyāta ātma-upādānayoḥ kramaḥ |
sarvo niravaśeṣeṇa sārdhaṃ ghaṭapaṭādibhiḥ ||15|| 
以燃可燃法 說受受者法
及以說瓶衣 一切等諸法 
| ma daṅ śiṅ gis bdag daṅ ni | | ñe bar len pa’i rim pa kun |
| bum rnam sogs daṅ lhan cig tu | | ma lus par ni rnam par bśad | 
Through fire and wood is explained without exception all the stages of self and the grasped and at the same time jugs, cloth and so on. 
ātmanaś ca satattvaṃ ye bhāvānāṃ ca pṛthak pṛthak |
nirdiśanti na tān manye śāsanasyārthakovidān ||16|| 
若人說有我 諸法各異相
當知如是人 不得佛法味 
| gaṅ dag bdag daṅ dṅos po rnams | | de bcas ñid daṅ tha dad par |
| ston pa de dag bstan don la | | mkhas (7)so sñam du mi sems so | 
I do not think those who teach the identity or difference of self and things are wise in the meaning of the teaching. 
agnīndhanaparīkṣā nāma daśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀燃可燃品第十(十六偈) 
| me daṅ bud śiṅ brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bcu pa’o || 
Investigation of Fire and Firewood 
pūrvā prajñāyate koṭir nety uvāca mahāmuniḥ |
saṃsāro ’navarāgro hi nāsyādir nāpi paścimam ||1|| 
大聖之所說 本際不可得
生死無有始 亦復無有終 
|| sṅon mtha’ mṅon nam źes źus tshe | | thub pa chen pos min źes gsuṅs |
| ’khor ba thog ma mtha’ med de | | de la sṅon med phyi ma med | 
When asked, “is a before-extreme evident?” the great Muni said, “it is not.” Samsara has no beginning, no end; it has no before, no after. 
naivāgraṃ nāvaraṃ yasya tasya madhyaṃ kuto bhavet |
tasmān nātropapadyante pūrvāparasahakramāḥ ||2|| 
若無有始終 中當云何有
是故於此中 先後共亦無 
| gaṅ la thog med mtha’ med par | | (7b1)de la dbus ni ga la yod |
| de phyir de la sṅa phyi daṅ | | lhan cig rim pa mi ’thad do | 
For that without beginning [and] end, where can a middle be in that? Therefore, it is not possible for it to have before, after, and simultaneous phases. 
pūrvaṃ jātir yadi bhavej jarāmaraṇam uttaram |
nirjarā maraṇā jātir bhavej jāyeta cāmṛtaḥ ||3|| 
若使先有生 後有老死者
不老死有生 不生有老死 
| gal te skye ba sṅa gyur la | | rga śi phyi ma yin na ni |
| skye ba rga śi med pa daṅ | | ma śi bar yaṅ skye bar ’gyur | 
If birth were before and aging/death after, there would be birth without aging/death and also without dying one would be born. 
paścāj jātir yadi bhavej jarāmaraṇam āditaḥ |
ahetukam ajātasya syāj jarāmaraṇaṃ katham ||4|| 
若先有老死 而後有生者
是則為無因 不生有老死 
| gal te skye ba ’phyi ’gyur la | | rga śi sṅa ba yin na ni |
| skye ba med pa’i rga (2)śi ni | | rgyu med par ni ji ltar ’gyur | 
If birth were after and aging/death before, how could there be an uncaused aging/death which has no birth? 
na jarāmaraṇaṃ caiva jātiś ca saha yujyate |
mriyeta jāyamānaś ca syāc cāhetukatobhayoḥ ||5|| 
生及於老死 不得一時共
生時則有死 是二俱無因 
| skye ba daṅ ni rga śi dag | lhan cig ruṅ ba ma yin te |
| skye bźin pa na ’chi ’gyur źiṅ | | gñis ka rgyu med can du ’gyur | 
It is not suitable for birth and aging/death to be simultaneous; that which is being born would be dying and both would be without cause. 
yatra na prabhavanty ete pūrvāparasahakramāḥ |
prapañcayanti tāṃ jātiṃ taj jarāmaraṇaṃ ca kim ||6|| 
若使初後共 是皆不然者
何故而戲論 謂有生老死 
| gaṅ la sṅa phyi lhan cig gi | | rim pa de dag mi srid pa’i |
| skye ba re daṅ rga śi de | | ci yi phyir na spro (3)bar byed | 
Why fixate on that birth, that aging/dying, for which the phases of before, after, simultaneity are impossible? 
kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ caiva lakṣyaṃ lakṣaṇam eva ca |
vedanā vedakaś caiva santy arthā ye ca ke cana ||7|| 
諸所有因果 相及可相法
受及受者等 所有一切法 
| ’khor ba ’ba’ źig sṅon gyi mtha’ | | yod ma yin par ma zad kyi |
| rgyu daṅ ’bras bu ñid daṅ ni | | mtshan ñid daṅ ni mtshan gźi ñid | 
It is not just samsara alone that has no before-extreme, cause and fruit themselves, and characteristics and the basis for characteristics themselves, 
pūrvā na vidyate koṭiḥ saṃsārasya na kevalam |
sarveṣām api bhāvānāṃ pūrvā koṭī na vidyate ||8|| 
非但於生死 本際不可得
如是一切法 本際皆亦無 
| tshor daṅ tshor po ñid daṅ ni | | don yod gaṅ dag ci yaṅ ruṅ |
| dṅos rnams thams cad ñid la yaṅ | | sṅon gyi mtha’ (4)ni yod ma yin | 
feeling and the feeler, whatever is suitable to bear meaning, also all things have no before-extreme. 
pūrvāparakoṭiparīkṣā nāmaikādaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀本際品第十一(八偈) 
| sṅon daṅ phyi ma’i mtha’ brtag pa źes bya ste rab tu byed pa bcu gcig pa’o || 
Investigation of Extremes of Before and After 
svayaṃ kṛtaṃ parakṛtaṃ dvābhyāṃ kṛtam ahetukam |
duḥkham ity eka icchanti tac ca kāryaṃ na yujyate ||1|| 
自作及他作 共作無因作
如是說諸苦 於果則不然 
|| kha cig sdug bsṅal bdag gis byas | | gźan gyis byas daṅ gñi gas byas |
| rgyu med pa las ’byuṅ bar ’dod | | de ni bya bar mi ruṅ ṅo | 
Some assert that anguish arises from being made by self, made by other, by both, without cause. To do that is not suitable. 
svayaṃ kṛtaṃ yadi bhavet pratītya na tato bhavet |
skandhān imān amī skandhāḥ saṃbhavanti pratītya hi ||2|| 
苦若自作者 則不從緣生
因有此陰故 而有彼陰生 
| gal te bdag gis byas gyur na | | (5)de phyir brten nas ’byuṅ mi ’gyur |
| gaṅ phyir phuṅ po ’di dag la | | brten nas phuṅ po de dag ’byuṅ | 
If it were made by self, therefore it would not be contingently arising, because those aggregates arise contingently on these aggregates. 
yady amībhya ime ’nye syur ebhyo vāmī pare yadi |
bhavet parakṛtaṃ duḥkhaṃ parair ebhir amī kṛtāḥ ||3|| 
若謂此五陰 異彼五陰者
如是則應言 從他而作苦 
| gal te ’di las de gźan źiṅ | | gal te de las ’di gźan na |
| sdug bsṅal gźan gyis byas ’gyur źiṅ | | gźan de dag gis de byas ’gyur | 
If that were other than this and if this were other than that, anguish would be made by other and that would be made by those others. 
svapudgalakṛtaṃ duḥkhaṃ yadi duḥkhaṃ punar vinā |
svapudgalaḥ sa katamo yena duḥkhaṃ svayaṃ kṛtam ||4|| 
若人自作苦 離苦何有人
而謂於彼人 而能自作苦 
| gal te gaṅ zag bdag gis ni | | (6)sdug bsṅal byas na gaṅ bdag gis |
| sdug bsṅal byas pa’i gaṅ zag ni | | sdug bsṅal ma gtogs gaṅ źig yin | 
If anguish were made by one’s own person, who would that person be who has made anguish by himself, but is not included in the anguish? 
parapudgalajaṃ duḥkhaṃ yadi yasmai pradīyate |
pareṇa kṛtvā tad duḥkhaṃ sa duḥkhena vinā kutaḥ ||5|| 
若苦他人作 而與此人者
若當離於苦 何有此人受 
| gal te gaṅ zag gźan las ni | | sdug bsṅal ’byuṅ na gźan źig gis |
| sdug bsṅal de byas gaṅ sbyin de | | sdug bsṅal ma gtogs ji ltar ruṅ | 
If anguish arose from another person, how could it be suitable for there to be [someone] not included in the anguish, who has been given it by another who made the anguish? 
parapudgalajaṃ duḥkhaṃ yadi kaḥ parapudgalaḥ |
vinā duḥkhena yaḥ kṛtvā parasmai prahiṇoti tat ||6|| 
苦若彼人作 持與此人者
離苦何有人 而能授於此 
| gal (7)te gaṅ zag gźan sdug bsṅal | | ’byuṅ na gaṅ gis de byas nas |
| gźan la ster ba’i gaṅ zag gźan | | sdug bsṅal ma gtogs gaṅ źig yin | 
If anguish arose [from] another person, who would that other person be who, having made it, gives it to someone else, but is not included in the anguish? 
svayaṃ kṛtasyāprasiddher duḥkhaṃ parakṛtaṃ kutaḥ |
paro hi duḥkhaṃ yat kuryāt tat tasya syāt svayaṃ kṛtam ||7|| 
自作若不成 云何彼作苦
若彼人作苦 即亦名自作 
| bdag gis byas par ma grub pas | | sdug bsṅal gźan gyis ga la byas |
| gźan gyis sdug bsṅal gaṅ byed pa | | de ni de yi (8a1)bdag byas ’gyur | 
Since it is not established as made by self, how can anguish have been made by other? [For] whatever anguish is made by other, that has been made by his self. 
na tāvat svakṛtaṃ duḥkhaṃ na hi tenaiva tat kṛtam |
paro nātmakṛtaś cet syād duḥkhaṃ parakṛtaṃ katham ||8|| 
苦不名自作 法不自作法
彼無有自體 何有彼作苦 
| re źig sdug bsṅal bdag byas min | | de ñid kyis ni de ma byas |
| gal te gźan bdag ma byas na | | sdug bsṅal gźan byas ga la ’gyur | 
Anguish is not made [by] self; that is not made by that itself. If it is not made by an other self, how can anguish be made by other? 
syād ubhābhyāṃ kṛtaṃ duḥkhaṃ syād ekaikakṛtaṃ yadi |
parākārāsvayaṃkāraṃ duḥkham ahetukaṃ kutaḥ ||9|| 
若此彼苦成 應有共作苦
此彼尚無作 何況無因作 
| gal te re res byas gyur na | | sdug bsṅal gñis kas byas par ’gyur |
| bdag (2)gis ma byas gźan ma byas | | sdug bsṅal rgyu med ga la ’gyur | 
If it is made by each, anguish would be made by both. Not made by self, not made by other, how can anguish have no cause? 
na kevalaṃ hi duḥkhasya cāturvidhyaṃ na vidyate |
bāhyānām api bhāvānāṃ cāturvidhyaṃ na vidyate ||10|| 
非但說於苦 四種義不成
一切外萬物 四義亦不成 
| sdug bsṅal ’ba’ źig rnam pa bźi | | yod ma yin par ma zad kyi |
| phyi rol dṅos po dag la yaṅ | | rnam pa bźi po yod ma yin | 
Not only does anguish alone not have the four aspects, external things too do not have the four aspects. 
duḥkhaparīkṣā nāma dvādaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀苦品第十二(十偈) 
| bdag gis byas pa daṅ gźan gyis byas pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab (3)tu byed pa bcu gñis pa’o || 
Investigation of Anguish 
tan mṛṣā moṣadharma yad bhagavān ity abhāṣata |
sarve ca moṣadharmāṇaḥ saṃskārās tena te mṛṣā ||1|| 
如佛經所說 虛誑妄取相
諸行妄取故 是名為虛誑 
|| bcom ldan ’das kyis chos gaṅ źig | slu ba de ni brdzun źes gsuṅs |
| ’du byed thams cad slu ba’i chos | | des na de dag brdzun pa yin | 
The Bhagavan said that whatever dharma is deceptive, that is false. All conditions [are] deceptive dharmas, thus they are false. 
tan mṛṣā moṣadharma yad yadi kiṃ tatra muṣyate |
etat tūktaṃ bhagavatā śūnyatāparidīpakam ||2|| 
虛誑妄取者 是中何所取
佛說如是事 欲以示空義 
| gal te slu chos gaṅ yin pa | | de brdzun de la ci źig slu |
| bcom ldan ’das kyis de (4)gsuṅs pa | | stoṅ ñid yoṅs su bstan pa yin | 
If whatever is a deceptive phenomenon is false, what is deceptive about it [in what way is it deceptive]? That statement by the Bhagavan is a complete presentation of emptiness. 
bhāvānāṃ niḥsvabhāvatvam anyathābhāvadarśanāt |
nāsvabhāvaś ca bhāvo ’sti bhāvānāṃ śūnyatā yataḥ ||3|| 
諸法有異故 知皆是無性
無性法亦無 一切法空故 
| dṅos rnams ṅo bo ñid med de | | gźan du ’gyur ba snaṅ phyir ro |
| dṅos po ṅo bo ñid med med | | gaṅ phyir dṅos rnams stoṅ pa ñid | 
Things have no essential nature because they are seen to change into something else. Things do not lack an essential nature because things are emptiness. 
kasya syād anyathābhāvaḥ svabhāvaś cen na vidyate |
kasya syād anyathābhāvaḥ svabhāvo yadi vidyate ||4|| 
 
諸法若無性 云何說嬰兒
乃至於老年 而有種種異 
若諸法有性 云何而得異
若諸法無性 云何而有異 
| gal te ṅo bo ñid med na | | gźan du ’gyur ba gaṅ gi yin |
| gal te ṅo bo ñid yod na | | (5)gźan du ’gyur bar ji ltar ruṅ | 
 
If there were no essential nature, whose [nature] would it be to change into something else? If there were an essential nature, how would it be possible to change into something else?   
tasyaiva nānyathābhāvo nāpy anyasyaiva yujyate |
yuvā na jīryate yasmād yasmāj jīrṇo na jīryate ||5|| 
是法則無異 異法亦無異
如壯不作老 老亦不作壯 
| de ñid la ni gźan ’gyur med | | gźan ñid la yaṅ yod ma yin |
| gaṅ phyir gźon nu mi rga ste | | gaṅ phyir rgas pa’aṅ mi rga’o | 
This itself does not change into something else. The other itself too does not [either]. Because youth does not age. Because age too does not age. 
tasya ced anyathābhāvaḥ kṣīram eva bhaved dadhi |
kṣīrād anyasya kasyacid dadhibhāvo bhaviṣyati ||6|| 
若是法即異 乳應即是酪
離乳有何法 而能作於酪 
| gal te de ñid gźan ’gyur na | | ’o ma ñid ni źor ’gyur ro |
| ’o ma las gźan gaṅ źig ni | | źo yi dṅos (6)po yin par ’gyur | 
If this itself changes into something else, milk itself would be curds. Something other than milk would be the being of curds. 
yady aśūnyaṃ bhavet kiṃcit syāc chūnyam iti kiṃ cana |
na kiṃcid asty aśūnyaṃ ca kutaḥ śūnyaṃ bhaviṣyati ||7|| 
若有不空法 則應有空法
實無不空法 何得有空法 
| gal te stoṅ min cuṅ zad yod | | stoṅ pa cuṅ zad yod par ’gyur |
| mi stoṅ cuṅ zad yod min na | | stoṅ pa yod par ga la ’gyur | 
If a bit of the non-empty existed, a bit of the empty would also exist. If there did not exist a bit of the non-empty, how could the empty exist? 
śūnyatā sarvadṛṣṭīnāṃ proktā niḥsaraṇaṃ jinaiḥ |
yeṣāṃ tu śūnyatādṛṣṭis tān asādhyān babhāṣire ||8|| 
大聖說空法 為離諸見故
若復見有空 諸佛所不化 
| rgyal ba rnams kyis stoṅ pa ñid | | lta kun ṅes par ’byuṅ bar gsuṅs |
| gaṅ dag stoṅ pa ñid lta ba | | de (7)dag bsgrub tu med par gsuṅs | 
The Conquerors taught emptiness as the forsaking of all views. Those who view emptiness are taught to be without realisation [incurable/incorrigible]. 
saṃskāraparīkṣā nāma trayodaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀行品第十三(九偈) 
| ’du byed brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bcu sum pa’o || 
Investigation of Samskaras 
draṣṭavyaṃ darśanaṃ draṣṭā trīṇy etāni dviśo dviśaḥ |
sarvaśaś ca na saṃsargam anyonyena vrajanty uta ||1|| 
見可見見者 是三各異方
如是三法異 終無有合時 
|| blta bya lta ba lta ba po | | gsum po de dag gñis gñis daṅ |
| thams cad kyaṅ ni phan tshun du | | phrad par ’gyur pa yod ma yin | 
The seen, the seeing and the seer: these three do not mutually connect [as] pairs or all [together]. 
evaṃ rāgaś ca raktaś ca rañjanīyaṃ ca dṛśyatām |
traidhena śeṣāḥ kleśāś ca śeṣāṇy āyatanāni ca ||2|| 
染與於可染 染者亦復然
餘入餘煩惱 皆亦復如是 
| de bźin ’dod chags chags pa (8b1)daṅ | | chags par bya ba ñon moṅs pa |
| lhag ma rnams daṅ skye mched kyi | | lhag ma’aṅ rnam pa gsum ñid kyis | 
Likewise desire, desiring and the desired, the remaining afflictions and also the remaining sense-fields do [not connect] by three aspects. 
anyenānyasya saṃsargas tac cānyatvaṃ na vidyate |
draṣṭavyaprabhṛtīnāṃ yan na saṃsargaṃ vrajanty ataḥ ||3|| 
異法當有合 見等無有異
異相不成故 見等云何合 
| gźan daṅ gźan du phrad ’gyur na | | gaṅ phyir blta bya la sogs la |
| gźan de yod pa ma yin pa | | de phyir phrad par mi ’gyur ro | 
If the other connects to the other, because the seen and so forth do not exist [as] other, therefore there is no connection. 
na ca kevalam anyatvaṃ draṣṭavyāder na vidyate |
kasyacit kenacit sārdhaṃ nānyatvam upapadyate ||4|| 
非但見等法 異相不可得
所有一切法 皆亦無異相 
| blta bya la sogs (2)’ba’ źig la | | gźan ñid med par ma zad kyi |
| gaṅ yaṅ gaṅ daṅ lhan cig tu | | gźan pa ñid du mi ’thad do | 
Not only are the seen and so forth alone not existing as other, it is invalid for anything simultaneous with something to be other [than it]. 
anyad anyat pratītyānyan nānyad anyad ṛte ’nyataḥ |
yat pratītya ca yat tasmāt tad anyan nopapadyate ||5|| 
異因異有異 異離異無異
若法從因出 是法不異因 
| gźan ni gźan la brten te gźan | | gźan med par gźan gźan mi ’gyur |
| gaṅ la brten te gaṅ yin pa | | de ni de las gźan mi ’thad | 
The other is other in dependence upon the other. Without the other, the other would not be other. It is invalid for whatever is dependent on something to be other than that. 
yady anyad anyad anyasmād anyasmād apy ṛte bhavet |
tad anyad anyad anyasmād ṛte nāsti ca nāsty ataḥ ||6|| 
若離從異異 應餘異有異
離從異無異 是故無有異 
| (3)gal te gźan ni gźan las gźan | | de tshe gźan med par gźan ’gyur |
| gźan med par ni gźan ’gyur pa | | yod min de yi phyir na med | 
If the other was other than the other, then, without the other, it would be other. Without the other it would not be other. Therefore, it does not exist. 
nānyasmin vidyate ’nyatvam ananyasmin na vidyate |
avidyamāne cānyatve nāsty anyad vā tad eva vā ||7|| 
異中無異相 不異中亦無
無有異相故 則無此彼異 
| gźan ñid gźan la yod ma yin | | gźan ma yin la’aṅ yod ma yin |
| gźan ñid yod pa ma yin na | | (4)gźan nam de ñid yod ma yin | 
Otherness does not exist in the other. Nor does it exist in what is not other. If otherness does not exist, neither the other nor that itself exists. 
na tena tasya saṃsargo nānyenānyasya yujyate |
saṃsṛjyamānaṃ saṃsṛṣṭaṃ saṃsraṣṭā ca na vidyate ||8|| 
是法不自合 異法亦不合
合者及合時 合法亦皆無 
| de ni de daṅ phrad pa med | | gźan daṅ gźan yaṅ phrad mi ’gyur |
| phrad bźin pa daṅ phrad pa daṅ | | phrad pa po yaṅ yod ma yin | 
That does not connect with that. The other too does not connect with the other. The connecting, the connection and the connector too do not exist. 
saṃsargaparīkṣā nāma caturdaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀合品第十四(八偈) 
| phrad pa brtag pa źes bya ste rab tu byed pa bcu bźi pa’o || 
Investigation of Connections 
na saṃbhavaḥ svabhāvasya yuktaḥ pratyayahetubhiḥ |
hetupratyayasaṃbhūtaḥ svabhāvaḥ kṛtako bhavet ||1|| 
眾緣中有性 是事則不然
性從眾緣出 即名為作法 
|| raṅ bźin rgyu daṅ rkyen las ni | | (5)’byuṅ bar rigs pa ma yin no |
| rgyu daṅ rkyen las byuṅ ba yi | | raṅ bźin byas pa can du ’gyur | 
It is unreasonable for an essence to arise from causes and conditions. Whatever essence arose from causes and conditions would be something that has been made. 
svabhāvaḥ kṛtako nāma bhaviṣyati punaḥ katham |
akṛtrimaḥ svabhāvo hi nirapekṣaḥ paratra ca ||2|| 
性若是作者 云何有此義
性名為無作 不待異法成 
| raṅ bźin byas pa can źes byar | | ji ltar bur na ruṅ bar ’gyur |
| raṅ bźin dag ni bcos min daṅ | | gźan la ltos pa med pa yin | 
How is it possible for there to be “an essence which has been made?” Essences are not contrived and not dependent on anything else. 
kutaḥ svabhāvasyābhāve parabhāvo bhaviṣyati |
svabhāvaḥ parabhāvasya parabhāvo hi kathyate ||3|| 
法若無自性 云何有他性
自性於他性 亦名為他性 
| raṅ bźin yod pa ma yin (6)na | | gźan gyi dṅos po ga la yod |
| gźan gyi dṅos po’i raṅ bźin ni | | gźan gyi dṅos po yin źes brjod | 
If an essence does not exist, how can the thingness of the other exist? [For] the essence of the thingness of the other is said to be the thingness of the other. 
svabhāvaparabhāvābhyām ṛte bhāvaḥ kutaḥ punaḥ |
svabhāve parabhāve ca sati bhāvo hi sidhyati ||4|| 
離自性他性 何得更有法
若有自他性 諸法則得成 
| raṅ bźin daṅ ni gźan dṅos dag | ma gtogs dṅos po ga la yod |
| raṅ bźin daṅ ni dṅos po dag | yod na dṅos po ’grub par ’gyur | 
Apart from an essence and the thingness of the other, what things are there? If essences and thingnesses of others existed, things would be established. 
bhāvasya ced aprasiddhir abhāvo naiva sidhyati |
bhāvasya hy anyathābhāvam abhāvaṃ bruvate janāḥ ||5|| 
有若不成者 無云何可成
因有有法故 有壞名為無 
| (7)gal te dṅos po ma grub na | | dṅos med ’grub par mi ’gyur ro |
| dṅos po gźan du gyur pa ni | | dṅos med yin par skye bo smra | 
If things were not established, non-things would not be established. [When] a thing becomes something else, people say that it is a non-thing. 
svabhāvaṃ parabhāvaṃ ca bhāvaṃ cābhāvam eva ca |
ye paśyanti na paśyanti te tattvaṃ buddhaśāsane ||6|| 
若人見有無 見自性他性
如是則不見 佛法真實義 
| gaṅ dag raṅ bźin gźan dṅos daṅ | | dṅos daṅ dṅos med ñid lta ba |
| de dag saṅs rgyas bstan pa la | | de ñid mthoṅ ba ma (9a1)yin no | 
Those who view essence, thingness of the other, things and non-things do not see the suchness in the teaching of the awakened. 
kātyāyanāvavāde cāstīti nāstīti cobhayam |
pratiṣiddhaṃ bhagavatā bhāvābhāvavibhāvinā ||7|| 
佛能滅有無 如化迦旃延
經中之所說 離有亦離無 
| bcom ldan dṅos daṅ dṅos med pa | | mkhyen pas ka ta ya na yi |
| gdam ṅag las ni yod pa daṅ | | med pa gñis ka’aṅ dgag pa mdzad | 
Through knowing things and non-things, the Buddha negated both existence and non-existence in his Advice to Katyayana. 
yady astitvaṃ prakṛtyā syān na bhaved asya nāstitā |
prakṛter anyathābhāvo na hi jātūpapadyate ||8|| 
若法實有性 後則不應異
性若有異相 是事終不然 
| gal te raṅ bźin gyis yod na | | de ni med ñid mi ’gyur ro |
| raṅ bźin gźan du (2)’gyur ba ni | | nam yaṅ ’thad par mi ’gyur ro | 
If [things] existed essentially, they would not come to non-existence. It is never the case that an essence could become something else. 
prakṛtau kasya vāsatyām anyathātvaṃ bhaviṣyati |
prakṛtau kasya vā satyām anyathātvaṃ bhaviṣyati ||9|| 
若法實有性 云何而可異
若法實無性 云何而可異 
| raṅ bźin yod pa mi yin na | | gźan du ’gyur pa gaṅ gi yin |
| raṅ bźin yod pa yin na yaṅ | | gźan du ’gyur ba ji ltar ruṅ | 
If essences did not exist, what could become something else? Even if essences existed, what could become something else? 
astīti śāśvatagrāho nāstīty ucchedadarśanam |
tasmād astitvanāstitve nāśrīyeta vicakṣaṇaḥ ||10|| 
定有則著常 定無則著斷
是故有智者 不應著有無 
| yod ces bya ba rtag par ’dzin | | med ces bya ba chad par lta |
| de phyir yod daṅ med (3)pa la | | mkhas pas gnas par mi bya’o | 
“Existence” is the grasping at permanence; “non-existence” is the view of annihilation. Therefore, the wise do not dwell, in existence or non-existence. 
asti yad dhi svabhāvena na tan nāstīti śāśvatam |
nāstīdānīm abhūt pūrvam ity ucchedaḥ prasajyate ||11|| 
若法有定性 非無則是常
先有而今無 是則為斷滅 
| gaṅ źig raṅ bźin gyis yod pa | | de ni med pa min pas rtag |
| sṅon byuṅ da ltar med ces pa | | des na chad par thal bar ’gyur | 
“Since that which exists by its essence is not non-existent,” is [the view of] permanence. “That which arose before is now non-existent,”leads to [the view of] annihilation. 
svabhāvaparīkṣā nāma pañcadaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
觀有無品第十五(十一偈) 
| raṅ bźin brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bco lṅa pa’o || 
Investigation of Essences 
saṃskārāḥ saṃsaranti cen na nityāḥ saṃsaranti te |
saṃsaranti ca nānityāḥ sattve ’py eṣa samaḥ kramaḥ ||1|| 
諸行往來者 常不應往來
無常亦不應 眾生亦復然 
|| gal te ’du byed ’khor (4)źe na | | de dag rtag na mi ’khor te |
| mi rtag na yaṅ ’khor mi ’gyur | | sems can la yaṅ rim ’di mtshuṅs | 
If it is said that impulses are “samsara”, if they were permanent, they would not move around. Even if impermanent, they would not move around. Sentient beings too are similar in this respect. 
pudgalaḥ saṃsarati cet skandhāyatanadhātuṣu |
pañcadhā mṛgyamāṇo ’sau nāsti kaḥ saṃsariṣyati ||2|| 
若眾生往來 陰界諸入中
五種求盡無 誰有往來者 
| gal te gaṅ zag ’khor źe na | | phuṅ po skye mched khams rnams la |
| de ni rnam pa lṅas btsal na | | med na gaṅ źig ’khor bar ’gyur | 
If it is said that persons “move around,” if they are non-existent when searched for in five aspects among the aggregates, sense fields and elements, what would move around? 
upādānād upādānaṃ saṃsaran vibhavo bhavet |
vibhavaś cānupādānaḥ kaḥ sa kiṃ saṃsariṣyati ||3|| 
若從身至身 往來即無身
若其無有身 則無有往來 
| ñe bar len nas ñer (5)len par | | ’khor na srid pa med par ’gyur |
| srid med ñe bar len med na | | de gaṅ ci źig ’khor bar ’gyur | 
If one moves around in having clung [to something] and then clinging [to something else], there would be no becoming. If there were no clinging and no becoming, who would move around? 
saṃskārāṇāṃ na nirvāṇaṃ kathaṃ cid upapadyate |
sattvasyāpi na nirvāṇaṃ kathaṃ cid upapadyate ||4|| 
諸行若滅者 是事終不然
眾生若滅者 是事亦不然 
| ’du byed mya ṅan ’da’ bar ni | | ji lta bur yaṅ mi ’thad do |
| sems can mya ṅan ’da’ bar yaṅ | | ji lta bur yaṅ ’thad mi ’gyur | 
It is in no way feasible that impulses go beyond misery. And it is in no way feasible that living beings go beyond misery. 
na badhyante na mucyanta udayavyayadharmiṇaḥ |
saṃskārāḥ pūrvavat sattvo badhyate na na mucyate ||5|| 
諸行生滅相 不縛亦不解
眾生如先說 不縛亦不解 
| skye ’jig chos can (6)’du byed rnams | | mi ’chiṅ grol bar mi ’gyur te |
| sṅa ma bźin du sems can yaṅ | | mi ’chiṅ grol bar mi ’gyur ro | 
Impulses that have the properties of being born and dying are not bound and will not be freed. In the same way as above living beings too are not bound and will not be freed. 
bandhanaṃ ced upādānaṃ sopādāno na badhyate |
badhyate nānupādānaḥ kim avastho ’tha badhyate ||6|| 
若身名為縛 有身則不縛
無身亦不縛 於何而有縛 
| gal te ñe bar len ’chiṅ na | | ñe bar len bcas ’chiṅ mi ’gyur |
| ñe bar len med mi ’chiṅ ste | | gnas skabs gaṅ źig ’chiṅ bar ’gyur | 
If clinging binds, the one who has clinging would not be bound. And there would be no bondage without clinging. In what situation would there be bondage? 
badhnīyād bandhanaṃ kāmaṃ bandhyāt pūrvaṃ bhaved yadi |
na cāsti tac cheṣam uktaṃ gamyamānagatāgataiḥ ||7|| 
若可縛先縛 則應縛可縛
而先實無縛 餘如去來答 
| (7)gal te bciṅ bya’i sṅa rol na | | ’chiṅ ba yod na ’chiṅ la rag |
| de yaṅ med de lhag ma ni | | soṅ daṅ ma soṅ bgom pas bstan | 
If binding existed prior to one who is bound, [that unbound person] would depend on binding. That too cannot be. The rest has been explained by the gone, the not-gone and the going. 
baddho na mucyate tāvad abaddho naiva mucyate |
syātāṃ baddhe mucyamāne yugapad bandhamokṣaṇe ||8|| 
縛者無有解 無縛亦無解
縛時有解者 縛解則一時 
| re źig bciṅs pa mi grol te | | ma bciṅs pa yaṅ grol mi ’gyur |
| bciṅs pa grol bźin yin ’gyur na | | bciṅs daṅ grol ba dus gcig (9b1)’gyur | 
Those who are bound will not be free. And those who are not bound will not be free. If those who are bound become free, bondage and freedom would be simultaneous. 
nirvāsyāmy anupādāno nirvāṇaṃ me bhaviṣyati |
iti yeṣāṃ grahas teṣām upādānamahāgrahaḥ ||9|| 
若不受諸法 我當得涅槃
若人如是者 還為受所縛 
| bdag ni len med mya ṅan ’da’ | | myaṅ ’das bdag gir ’gyur ro źes |
| de ltar gaṅ dag ’dzin de yi | | ñer len ’dzin pa chen po yin | 
“I, without clinging, am beyond misery. Nirvana is mine.” Those who grasp in that way have great grasping and clinging. 
na nirvāṇasamāropo na saṃsārāpakarṣaṇam |
yatra kas tatra saṃsāro nirvāṇaṃ kiṃ vikalpyate ||10|| 
不離於生死 而別有涅槃
實相義如是 云何有分別 
| gaṅ la mya ṅan ’das bskyed med | | ’khor ba bsal ba’aṅ yod min pa |
| de la ’khor ba ci źig yin | | mya ṅan ’das (2)pa’aṅ ci źig brtag | 
When nirvana is not born and samsara not eliminated, then what is samsara? And what is considered as nirvana? 
bandhanamokṣaparīkṣā nāma ṣoḍaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀縛解品第十六(十偈) 
| bciṅs pa daṅ thar pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bcu drug pa’o || 
Investigation of Bondage and Freedom 
ātmasaṃyamakaṃ cetaḥ parānugrāhakaṃ ca yat |
maitraṃ sa dharamas tad bījaṃ phalasya pretya ceha ca ||1|| 
人能降伏心 利益於眾生
是名為慈善 二世果報種 
| bdag ñid legs par sdom pa daṅ | | gźan la phan ’dogs byams sems gaṅ |
| de chos de ni ’di gźan du | | ’bras bu dag gi sa bon yin | 
Restraining oneself well and loving thoughts that benefit others are the Dharma which is the seed of fruits here and elsewhere. 
cetanā cetayitvā ca karmoktaṃ paramarṣiṇā |
tasyānekavidho bhedaḥ karmaṇaḥ parikīrtitaḥ ||2|| 
大聖說二業 思與從思生
是業別相中 種種分別說 
| draṅ sroṅ mchog gis las (3)rnams ni | | sems pa daṅ ni bsam par gsuṅs |
| las de bdag gi bye brag ni | | rnams pa du mar yoṅs su bsgrags | 
The great sage has taught all actions to be intention and what is intended. The specifics of those actions are well known to be of many kinds. 
tatra yac cetanety uktaṃ karma tan mānasaṃ smṛtam |
cetayitvā ca yat tūktaṃ tat tu kāyikavācikam ||3|| 
佛所說思者 所謂意業是
所從思生者 即是身口業 
| de la las gaṅ sems pa źes | | gsuṅs pa de ni yi kyir ’dod |
| bsams pa źes ni gaṅ gsuṅs pa | | de ni lus daṅ ṅag gir yin | 
In this respect action spoken of as “intention” is regarded as being that of mind. That spoken of as “what is intended” is regarded as being that of body and speech. 
vāgviṣpando ’viratayo yāś cāvijñaptisaṃjñitāḥ |
avijñaptaya evānyāḥ smṛtā viratayas tathā ||4|| 
身業及口業 作與無作業
如是四事中 亦善亦不善 
| (4)ṅag daṅ bskyod daṅ mi spoṅ ba’i | | rnam rig byed min źes bya gaṅ |
| spoṅ ba’i rnam rig byed min pa | | gźan dag kyaṅ ni de bźin ’dod | 
Whatever (1) speech and (2) movements and (3) “unconscious not-letting-go,” (4) other kinds of unconscious letting-go are also regarded like that. 
paribhogānvayaṃ puṇyam apuṇyaṃ ca tathāvidham |
cetanā ceti saptaite dharmāḥ karmāñjanāḥ smṛtāḥ ||5|| 
從用生福德 罪生亦如是
及思為七法 能了諸業相 
| loṅs spyod las byuṅ bsod nams daṅ | | bsod nams ma yin tshul de bźin |
| sems pa daṅ ni chos de bdun | | las su (5)mṅon par ’dod pa yin | 
(5) Goodness that arises from enjoyment/use and in the same manner (6) what is not goodness,[and] (7) intention. These seven dharmas are clearly regarded as action. 
tiṣṭhaty ā pākakālāc cet karma tan nityatām iyāt |
niruddhaṃ cen niruddhaṃ sat kiṃ phalaṃ janayiṣyati ||6|| 
業住至受報 是業即為常
若滅即無業 云何生果報 
| gal te smin pa’i dus bar du | | gnas na las de rtag par ’gyur |
| gal te ’gags na ’gags gyur pa | | ji ltar ’bras bu skye par ’gyur | 
If the action remained until the time of ripening, it would become permanent. If it stopped, by having stopped, how could a fruit be born? 
yo ’ṅkuraprabhṛtir bījāt saṃtāno ’bhipravartate |
tataḥ phalam ṛte bījāt sa ca nābhipravartate ||7|| 
如芽等相續 皆從種子生
從是而生果 離種無相續 
| myu gu la sogs rgyun gaṅ ni | | sa bon las ni mṅon par ’byuṅ |
| de las ’bras bu sa bon ni | | (6)med na de yaṅ ’byuṅ mi ’gyur | 
The continuum of sprouts and so on clearly emerges from seeds, and from that fruits. If there were no seeds, they too would not emerge. 
bījāc ca yasmāt saṃtānaḥ saṃtānāc ca phalodbhavaḥ |
bījapūrvaṃ phalaṃ tasmān nocchinnaṃ nāpi śāśvatam ||8|| 
從種有相續 從相續有果
先種後有果 不斷亦不常 
| gaṅ phyir sa bon las rgyun daṅ | | rgyun las ’bras bu ’byuṅ ’gyur źiṅ |
| las ni ’bras bu’i sṅon ’gro ba | | de phyir chad min rtag ma yin | 
Because continuums are from seedsand fruits emerge from continuums and seeds precede fruits, therefore, there is no annihilation and no permanence. 
yas tasmāc cittasaṃtānaś cetaso ’bhipravartate |
tataḥ phalam ṛte cittāt sa ca nābhipravartate ||9|| 
如是從初心 心法相續生
從是而有果 離心無相續 
| sems kyi rgyun ni gaṅ yin pa | | sems las mṅon par ’byuṅ bar ’gyur |
| de las ’bras bu (7)sems lta źig | med na de yaṅ ’byuṅ mi ’gyur | 
The continuum of mind clearly emerges from mind, and from that fruits. If there were no mind, they too would not emerge. 
cittāc ca yasmāt saṃtānaḥ saṃtānāc ca phalodbhavaḥ |
karmapūrvaṃ phalaṃ tasmān nocchinnaṃ nāpi śāśvatam ||10|| 
從心有相續 從相續有果
先業後有果 不斷亦不常 
| gaṅ phyir sems las rgyun daṅ ni | | rgyun las ’bras bu ’byuṅ ’gyur źiṅ |
| las ni ’bras bu’i sṅon ’gro ba | | de phyir chad min rtag ma yin | 
Because continuums are from minds and fruits emerge from continuums and actions precede fruits, therefore, there is no annihilation and no permanence. 
dharmasya sādhanopāyāḥ śuklāḥ karmapathā daśa |
phalaṃ kāmaguṇāḥ pañca dharmasya pretya ceha ca ||11|| 
能成福德者 是十白業道
二世五欲樂 即是白業報 
| dkar po’i las kyi lam bcu po | | chos sgrub pa yi thabs yin te |
| (10a1)chos kyi ’bras bu ’di gźan du | | ’dod pa’i yon tan rnam lṅa’o | 
The ten paths of white action are the means of practising Dharma. Here and elsewhere, the fruits of Dharma are the five kinds of sensual qualities. 
bahavaś ca mahāntaś ca doṣāḥ syur yadi kalpanā |
syād eṣā tena naivaiṣā kalpanātropapadyate ||12|| 
若如汝分別 其過則甚多
是故汝所說 於義則不然 
| gal te brtag pa der ’gyur na | | ñes pa chen po maṅ por ’gyur |
| de lta bas na brtag pa de | | ’dir ni ’thad pa ma yin no | 
If it were as that investigation, many great mistakes would occur. Therefore, that investigation is not valid here. 
imāṃ punaḥ pravakṣyāmi kalpanāṃ yātra yojyate |
buddhaiḥ pratyekabuddhaiś ca śrāvakaiś cānuvarṇitām ||17|| 
今當復更說 順業果報義
諸佛辟支佛 賢聖所稱歎 
| saṅs rgyas rnams daṅ raṅ rgyal daṅ | | ñan thos rnams (2)kyis gaṅ gsuṅs pa’i |
| brtag pa gaṅ źig ’dir ’thad pa | | de ni rab tu brjod par bya | 
I will fully declare the investigation which is taught by the Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas and Sravakas, which is valid here. 
pattraṃ yathā ’vipraṇāśas tatharṇam iva karma ca |
caturvidho dhātutaḥ sa prakṛtyāvyākṛtaś ca saḥ ||17|| 
不失法如券 業如負財物
此性則無記 分別有四種 
| ji ltar dbaṅ rgya de bźin chuṅ | | mi za las ni bu lon bźin |
| de ni khams las rnam pa bźi | | de yaṅ raṅ bźin luṅ ma bstan | 
Just like a contract, irrevocable action is like a debt. In terms of realms, there are four types. Moreover, its nature is unspecified. 
prahāṇato na praheyo bhāvanāheya eva vā |
tasmād avipraṇāśena jāyate karmaṇāṃ phalam ||17|| 
見諦所不斷 但思惟所斷
以是不失法 諸業有果報 
| spoṅ bas spaṅ ba ma yin te | (3)bsgom pas spaṅ ba ñid kyaṅ yin |
| de phyir chud mi za ba yis | | las kyi ’bras bu skyed par ’gyur | 
It is not let go of by letting go, but only let go of by cultivation. Therefore through irrevocability are the fruits of acts produced. 
prahāṇataḥ praheyaḥ syāt karmaṇaḥ saṃkrameṇa vā |
yadi doṣāḥ prasajyeraṃs tatra karmavadhādayaḥ ||17|| 
若見諦所斷 而業至相似
則得破業等 如是之過咎 
| gal te spoṅ bas spaṅ ba daṅ | | las ’pho ba yis ’jig ’gyur na |
| de la las ’jig la sogs pa’i | | skyon rnams su ni thal bar ’gyur | 
If it perished through being let go of by letting go and the transcendence of the action, then faults would follow such as the perishing of actions. 
sarveṣāṃ visabhāgānāṃ sabhāgānāṃ ca karmaṇām |
pratisaṃdhau sadhātūnām eka utpadyate tu saḥ ||17|| 
一切諸行業 相似不相似
一界初受身 爾時報獨生 
| khams (4)mtshuṅs las ni cha mtshuṅs daṅ | | cha mi mtshuṅs pa thams cad kyi |
| de ni ñiṅ mtshams sbyor ba’i tshe | | gcig po kho na skye bar ’gyur | 
The very [irrevocability] of all actions in similar or dissimilar realms, that one alone is born when crossing the boundary [i.e. reborn]. 
karmaṇaḥ karmaṇo dṛṣṭe dharma utpadyate tu saḥ |
dviprakārasya sarvasya vipakve ’pi ca tiṣṭhati ||18|| 
如是二種業 現世受果報
或言受報已 而業猶故在 
| mthoṅ ba’i chos la rnam gñis po | | kun gyi las daṅ las kyi de |
| tha dad par ni skye ’gyur źiṅ | | rnam par smin kyaṅ (5)gnas pa yin | 
In the visible world there are two kinds. Actions of all [types] and that [irrevocability] of actions are produced as different things and remain [so?] even on ripening. 
phalavyatikramād vā sa maraṇād vā nirudhyate |
anāsravaṃ sāsravaṃ ca vibhāgaṃ tatra lakṣayet ||19|| 
若度果已滅 若死已而滅
於是中分別 有漏及無漏 
| de ni ’bras bu ’pho ba daṅ | | śi bar gyur na ’gag par ’gyur |
| de yi rnam dbye zag med daṅ | | zag daṅ bcas par śes par bya | 
When the fruit is transcendent and when one dies, that ceases. One should know its divisions to be without-corruption and with-corruption. 
śūnyatā ca na cocchedaḥ saṃsāraś ca na śāśvatam |
karmaṇo ’vipraṇāśaś ca dharmo buddhena deśitaḥ ||20|| 
雖空亦不斷 雖有亦不常
業果報不失 是名佛所說 
| stoṅ pa ñid daṅ tshad med daṅ | | ’khor ba daṅ ni rtag pa min |
| las rnams chud mi za ba’i chos | | saṅs (6)rgyas kyis ni bstan pa yin | 
Emptiness is not annihilation and samsara is not permanent. The dharma of the irrevocability of actions is taught by the Buddha. 
karma notpadyate kasmān niḥsvabhāvaṃ yatas tataḥ |
yasmāc ca tad anutpannaṃ na tasmād vipraṇaśyati ||21|| 
諸業本不生 以無定性故
諸業亦不滅 以其不生故 
| gaṅ phyir las ni skye ba med | | ’di ltar raṅ bźin med de’i phyir |
| gaṅ phyir de ni ma skyes pa | | de phyir chud zar mi ’gyur ro | 
Because actions are not born, in this way they have no nature. Therefore, because they are not born, therefore they are irrevocable. 
karma svabhāvataś cet syāc chāśvataṃ syād asaṃśayam |
akṛtaṃ ca bhavet karma kriyate na hi śāśvatam ||22|| 
若業有性者 是則名為常
不作亦名業 常則不可作 
| gal te las la raṅ bźin yod | | rtag par ’gyur bar the tshom med |
| las ni byas pa ma yin ’gyur | | rtag la (7)bya ba med phyir ro | 
If actions existed [by] nature, without doubt they would be permanent. Actions would not be done [by an agent] because what is permanent cannot be done. 
akṛtābhyāgamabhayaṃ syāt karmākṛtakaṃ yadi |
abrahmacaryavāsaś ca doṣastatra prasajyate ||23|| 
若有不作業 不作而有罪
不斷於梵行 而有不淨過 
| ci ste las ni ma byas na | | ma byas pa daṅ phrad ’jigs ’gyur |
| tshaṅs spyod gnas pa ma yin pa’aṅ | | de la skyon du thal bar ’gyur | 
If actions were not done [by anyone], one would fear meeting what [one] has not done. Also the fault would follow for that [person] of not dwelling in the pure life. 
vyavahārā virudhyante sarva eva na saṃśayaḥ |
puṇyapāpakṛtor naiva pravibhāgaś ca yujyate ||24|| 
是則破一切 世間語言法
作罪及作福 亦無有差別 
| tha sñad thams cad ñid daṅ yaṅ | | ’gal bar ’gyur bar the tshom med |
| bsod nams daṅ ni sdig byed pa’i (10b1)rnam pa dbye ba’aṅ ’thad mi ’gyur | 
All conventions also without doubt would be contradictory. Also the distinction between doing good and evil would not be valid. 
tad vipakvavipākaṃ ca punar eva vipakṣyati |
karma vyavasthitaṃ yasmāt tasmāt svābhāvikaṃ yadi ||25|| 
若言業決定 而自有性者
受於果報已 而應更復受 
| de ni rnam smin smin ’gyur pa | | yaṅ daṅ yaṅ du rnam smin ’gyur |
| gal te raṅ bźin yod na ni | | gaṅ phyir las gnas de yi phyir | 
[When] the ripening of that [action] has ripened it would ripen again and again, because if it existed [by] nature, it would [always] remain. 
karma kleśātmakaṃ cedaṃ te ca kleśā na tattvataḥ |
na cet te tattvataḥ kleśāḥ karma syāt tattvataḥ katham ||26|| 
若諸世間業 從於煩惱生
是煩惱非實 業當何有實 
| las ’di ñon moṅs dag ñid la | ñon moṅs de dag yaṅ dag min |
| gal te ñon moṅs (2)yaṅ dag min | | las ni yaṅ dag ji ltar yin | 
This action has the character of affliction and afflictions are not real. If affliction is not real, how can action be real? 
karma kleśāś ca dehānāṃ pratyayāḥ samudāhṛtāḥ |
karma kleśāś ca te śūnyā yadi deheṣu kā kathā ||27|| 
諸煩惱及業 是說身因緣
煩惱諸業空 何況於諸身 
| las daṅ ñon moṅs pa dag ni | | lus rnams kyi ni rkyen du bstan |
| gal te las daṅ ñon moṅs pa | | de stoṅ lus la ji ltar brjod | 
Actions and afflictions are taught to be the conditions for bodies. If actions and afflictions are empty, how can one speak of bodies? 
avidyānivṛto jantus tṛṣṇāsaṃyojanaś ca saḥ |
sa bhoktā sa ca na kartur anyo na ca sa eva saḥ ||28|| 
無明之所蔽 愛結之所縛
而於本作者 不即亦不異 
| ma rig bsgribs pa’i skye bo gaṅ | | sred ldan de mi za ba po |
| de yaṅ byed (3)las gźan min źiṅ | | de ñid de yaṅ ma yin no | 
People who are obscured by ignorance, those with craving, are the consumers [of the fruits of action]. They are not other than those who do the action and they are also not those very ones. 
na pratyayasamutpannaṃ nāpratyayasamutthitam |
asti yasmād idaṃ karma tasmāt kartāpi nāsty ataḥ ||29|| 
業不從緣生 不從非緣生
是故則無有 能起於業者 
| gaṅ gi phyir na las ’di ni | | rkyen las byuṅ ba ma yin źiṅ |
| rkyen min las byuṅ yod min pa | | de phyir byed pa po yaṅ med | 
Because the action does not emerge from conditions and does not emerge from non-conditions, therefore, the agent too does not exist. 
karma cen nāsti kartā ca kutaḥ syāt karmajaṃ phalam |
asaty atha phale bhoktā kuta eva bhaviṣyati ||30|| 
無業無作者 何有業生果
若其無有果 何有受果者 
| gal te las daṅ byed med na | | las skyes ’bras bu ga las yod |
| ci ste ’bras bu (4)yod min na | | za ba po lta ga la yod | 
If neither the action nor the agent exists, where can there be a fruit of the action? If the fruit does not exist, where can the consumer exist? 
yathā nirmitakaṃ śāstā nirmimīta rddhisaṃpadā |
nirmito nirmimītānyaṃ sa ca nirmitakaḥ punaḥ ||31|| 
如世尊神通 所作變化人
如是變化人 復變作化人 
| ji ltar ston pas sprul pa ni | | rdzul ’phrul phun tshogs kyis sprul źiṅ |
| sprul pa de yaṅ sprul pa na | | slar yaṅ gźan ni sprul pa ltar | 
Just as a teacher creates a creation by a wealth of magical powers, and just as if that creation too created, again another would be created, 
tathā nirmitakākāraḥ kartā yat karma tat kṛtam |
tadyathā nirmitenānyo nirmito nirmitas tathā ||32|| 
如初變化人 是名為作者
變化人所作 是則名為業 
| de bźin byed po de las gaṅ | | byas pa’aṅ sprul pa’i rnam pa bźin |
| dper na (5)sprul pas sprul gźan źig | | sprul pa mdzad pa de bźin no | 
Like this, whatever action too done by that agent [is ]also like the aspect of a creation. It is just like, for example, a creation creating another creation. 
kleśāḥ karmāṇi dehāś ca kartāraś ca phalāni ca |
gandharvanagarākārā marīcisvapnasaṃnibhāḥ ||33|| 
諸煩惱及業 作者及果報
皆如幻與夢 如炎亦如嚮 
| ñon moṅs las daṅ lus rnams daṅ | | byed pa po daṅ ’bras bu dag |
| dri za’i groṅ khyer lta bu daṅ | | smig rgyu rmi lam ’dra ba yin | 
Afflictions, actions and bodies and agents and fruits are like a city of gandharvas, a mirage, a dream. 
karma[phala]parīkṣā nāma saptadaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀業品第十七(三十三偈) 
| las brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bcu bdun pa’o || 
Investigation of Actions and Fruits 
ātmā skandhā yadi bhaved udayavyayabhāg bhavet |
skandhebhyo ’nyo yadi bhaved bhaved askandhalakṣaṇaḥ ||1|| 
若我是五陰 我即為生滅
若我異五陰 則非五陰相 
|| (6)gal te phuṅ po bdag yin na | | skye daṅ ’jig pa can du ’gyur |
| gal te phuṅ po rnams las gźan | | phuṅ po’i mtshan ñid med par ’gyur | 
If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates. 
ātmany asati cātmīyaṃ kuta eva bhaviṣyati |
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīnayoḥ ||2|| 
若無有我者 何得有我所
滅我我所故 名得無我智 
| bdag ñid yod pa ma yin na | | bdag gi yod par ga la ’gyur |
| bdag daṅ bdag gi źi ba’i phyir | | ṅar ’dzin ṅa yir (7)’dzin med ’gyur | 
If the self did not exist, where could what is mine exist? In order to pacify self and what is mine, grasping I and grasping mine can exist no more. 
nirmamo nirahaṃkāro yaś ca so ’pi na vidyate |
nirmamaṃ nirahaṃkāraṃ yaḥ paśyati na paśyati ||3|| 
得無我智者 是則名實觀
得無我智者 是人為希有 
| ṅar ’dzin ṅa yir ’dzin med gaṅ | | de yaṅ yod pa ma yin te |
| ṅar ’dzin ṅa yir ’dzin med par | | gaṅ gis mthoṅ bas mi mthoṅ ṅo | 
The one who does not grasp at me and mine likewise does not exist. Whoever sees the one who does not grasp at me and mine does not see. 
mamety aham iti kṣīṇe bahirdhādhyātmam eva ca |
nirudhyata upādānaṃ tatkṣayāj janmanaḥ kṣayaḥ ||4|| 
內外我我所 盡滅無有故
諸受即為滅 受滅則身滅 
| naṅ daṅ phyi rol ñid dag la | | bdag daṅ bdag gi sñam zad na |
| ñe bar len pa ’gag ’gyur źiṅ | | de zad (11a1)pas na skye ba zad | 
When one ceases thinking of inner and outer things as self and mine, clinging will come to a stop. Through that ceasing, birth will cease. 
karmakleśakṣayān mokṣaḥ karmakleśā vikalpataḥ |
te prapañcāt prapañcas tu śūnyatāyāṃ nirudhyate ||5|| 
業煩惱滅故 名之為解脫
業煩惱非實 入空戲論滅 
| las daṅ ñon moṅs zad pas thar | | las daṅ ñon moṅs rnam rtog las |
| de dag spros las spros pa ni | | stoṅ pa ñid kyis ’gag par ’gyur | 
Through the ceasing of action and affliction, there is freedom. Action and affliction [come] from thoughts and they from fixations. Fixations are stopped by emptiness. 
ātmety api prajñapitam anātmety api deśitam |
buddhair nātmā na cānātmā kaścid ity api deśitam ||6|| 
諸佛或說我 或說於無我
諸法實相中 無我無非我 
| bdag go źes kyaṅ btags gyur ciṅ | | bdag med ces kyaṅ bstan (2)par gyur |
| saṅs rgyas rnams kyis bdag daṅ ni | | bdag med ’ga’ med ces kyaṅ bstan | 
It is said that “there is a self,” but “non-self” too is taught. The buddhas also teach there is nothing which is “neither self nor non-self.” 
nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛttaś cittagocaraḥ |
anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā ||7|| 
諸法實相者 心行言語斷
無生亦無滅 寂滅如涅槃 
| brjod par bya ba ldog pa ste | | sems kyi spyod yul ldog pas so |
| ma skyes pa daṅ ma ’gags pa | | chos ñid mya ṅan ’das daṅ mtshuṅs | 
That to which language refers is denied, because an object experienced by the mind is denied. The unborn and unceasing nature of reality is comparable to nirvana. 
sarvaṃ tathyaṃ na vā tathyaṃ tathyaṃ cātathyam eva ca |
naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyam etad buddhānuśāsanam ||8|| 
一切實非實 亦實亦非實
非實非非實 是名諸佛法 
| thams cad (3)yaṅ dag yaṅ dag min | | yaṅ dag yaṅ dag ma yin ñid |
| yaṅ dag min min yaṅ dag min | | de ni saṅs rgyas rjes bstan pa’o | 
Everything is real, not real; both real and not real; neither not real nor real: this is the teaching of the Buddha. 
aparapratyayaṃ śāntaṃ prapañcair aprapañcitam |
nirvikalpam anānārtham etat tattvasya lakṣaṇam ||9|| 
自知不隨他 寂滅無戲論
無異無分別 是則名實相 
| gźan las śes min źi ba daṅ | | spros pa rnams kyis ma spros pa |
| rnam rtog med don tha dad med | | de ni de ñid (4)mtshan ñid do | 
Not known through others, peaceful, not fixed by fixations, without conceptual thought, without differentiation: these are the characteristics of suchness. 
pratītya yad yad bhavati na hi tāvat tad eva tat |
na cānyad api tat tasmān nocchinnaṃ nāpi śāśvatam ||10|| 
若法從緣生 不即不異因
是故名實相 不斷亦不常 
| gaṅ la brten te gaṅ ’byuṅ ba | | de ni re źig de ñid min |
| de las gźan pa’aṅ ma yin phyir | | de phyir chad min rtag ma yin | 
Whatever arises dependent on something else is at that time neither that very thing nor other than it. Hence it is neither severed nor permanent. 
anekārtham anānārtham anucchedam aśāśvatam |
etat tal lokanāthānāṃ buddhānāṃ śāsanāmṛtam ||11|| 
不一亦不異 不常亦不斷
是名諸世尊 教化甘露味 
| saṅs rgyas ’jig rten mgon rnams kyi | | bstan pa bdud rtsir gyur pa de |
| don gcig ma yin tha dad min | (5)chad pa ma yin rtag ma yin | 
That ambrosial teaching of the buddhas, those guardians of the world, is neither the same nor different, neither severed nor permanent. 
saṃbuddhānām anutpāde śrāvakāṇāṃ punaḥ kṣaye |
jñānaṃ pratyekabuddhānām asaṃsargāt pravartate ||12|| 
若佛不出世 佛法已滅盡
諸辟支佛智 從於遠離生 
| rdzogs saṅs rgyas rnams ma byuṅ źiṅ | | ñan thos rnams ni zad gyur kyaṅ |
| raṅ saṅs rgyas kyi ye śes ni | | ston pa med las rab tu skye | 
When perfect buddhas do not appear, and when their disciples have died out, the wisdom of the self-awakened ones will vividly arise without reliance. 
ātmaparīkṣā nāmāṣṭadaśamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀法品第十八(十二偈) 
| bdag daṅ chos brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bcwo [?] brgyad pa’o || 
Investigation of Self and Things 
pratyutpanno ’nāgataś ca yady atītam apekṣya hi |
pratyutpanno ’nāgataś ca kāle ’tīte bhaviṣyataḥ ||1|| 
若因過去時 有未來現在
未來及現在 應在過去時 
|| da (6)ltar byuṅ daṅ ma ’oṅs pa | | gal te ’das la ltos gyur na |
| da ltar byuṅ daṅ ma ’oṅs pa | | ’das pa’i dus na yod par ’gyur | 
If the present and the future were contingent on the past, then the present and the future would have existed in the past. 
pratyutpanno ’nāgataś ca na stas tatra punar yadi |
pratyutpanno ’nāgataś ca syātāṃ katham apekṣya tam ||2|| 
若過去時中 無未來現在
未來現在時 云何因過去 
| da ltar byuṅ daṅ ma ’oṅs pa | | gal te de na med gyur na |
| da ltar byuṅ daṅ ma ’oṅs pa | | ji ltar de la ltos par ’gyur | 
If the present and future did not exist there, then how could the present and the future be contingent on it? 
anapekṣya punaḥ siddhir nātītaṃ vidyate tayoḥ |
pratyutpanno ’nāgataś ca tasmāt kālo na vidyate ||3|| 
不因過去時 則無未來時
亦無現在時 是故無二時 
| ’das (7)pa la ni ma ltos par | | de gñis grub pa yod ma yin |
| de phyir da ltar byuṅ ba daṅ | | ma ’oṅs dus kyaṅ yod ma yin | 
Without being contingent on the past neither can be established. Hence the present and the future times also do not exist. 
etenaivāvaśiṣṭau dvau krameṇa parivartakau |
uttamādhamamadhyādīn ekatvādīṃś ca lakṣayet ||4|| 
以如是義故 則知餘二時
上中下一異 是等法皆無 
| rim pa’i tshul ni ’di ñid kyis | | lhag ma gñis po bsnor ba daṅ |
| mchog daṅ tha ma ’briṅ la sogs | | gcig la sogs pa’aṅ (11b1)śes par bya | 
These very stages can be applied to the other two. Superior, inferior, middling etc., singularity and so on can also be understood [thus]. 
nāsthito gṛhyate kālaḥ sthitaḥ kālo na vidyate |
yo gṛhyetāgṛhītaś ca kālaḥ prajñapyate katham ||5|| 
時住不可得 時去亦叵得
時若不可得 云何說時相 
| mi gnas dus ni ’dzin mi byed | | gaṅ źig gzuṅ bar bya ba’i dus |
| gnas pa yod pa ma yin pas | | ma bzuṅ dus ni ji ltar gdags | 
Non-dwelling time cannot be apprehended. Since time which can be apprehended, does not exist as something which dwells, how can one talk of unapprehendable time? 
bhāvaṃ pratītya kālaś cet kālo bhāvād ṛte kutaḥ |
na ca kaś cana bhāvo ’sti kutaḥ kālo bhaviṣyati ||6|| 
因物故有時 離物何有時
物尚無所有 何況當有時 
| gal te dus ni dṅos brten te | | dṅos med dus ni ga la yod |
| dṅos po ’ga’ yaṅ yod min na | | dus lta yod (2)par ga la ’gyur | 
If time depended on things, where would time which is a non-thing exist? If there were no things at all, where would a view of time exist? 
kālaparīkṣā nāmaikonaviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀時品第十九(六偈) 
| dus brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa bcu dgu pa’o || 
Investigation of Time 
hetoś ca pratyayānāṃ ca sāmagryā jāyate yadi |
phalam asti ca sāmagryāṃ sāmagryā jāyate katham ||1|| 
若眾緣和合 而有果生者
和合中已有 何須和合生 
|| gal te rgyu daṅ rkyen rnams kyi | | tshogs pa ñid las skye ’gyur źiṅ |
| tshogs la ’bras bu yod na ni | | ji ltar tshogs pa ñid las skye | 
If a fruit is born from the combination of cause and conditions and exists in the combination, how can it be born from the combination itself? 
hetoś ca pratyayānāṃ ca sāmagryā jāyate yadi |
phalaṃ nāsti ca sāmagryāṃ sāmagryā jāyate katham ||2|| 
若眾緣和合 是中無果者
云何從眾緣 和合而果生 
| gal te rgyu daṅ rkyen rnams kyi | | tshogs pa ñid (3)las skye ’gyur źiṅ |
| tshogs la ’bras bu med na ni | | ji ltar tshogs pa ñid las skye | 
If a fruit is born from the combination of cause and conditions and does not exist in the combination, how can it be born from the combination itself? 
hetoś ca pratyayānāṃ ca sāmagryām asti cet phalam |
gṛhyeta nanu sāmagryāṃ sāmagryāṃ ca na gṛhyate ||3|| 
若眾緣和合 是中有果者
和合中應有 而實不可得 
| gal te rgyu daṅ rkyen rnams kyi | | tshogs la ’bras bu yod na ni |
| tshogs la gzuṅ du yod rigs na | | tshogs pa ñid la gzuṅ du med | 
If the fruit exists in the combination of cause and conditions, it would be correct for it to be apprehendable in the combination but it is not apprehendable in the combination. 
hetoś ca pratyayānāṃ ca sāmagryāṃ nāsti cet phalam |
hetavaḥ pratyayāś ca syur ahetupratyayaiḥ samāḥ ||4|| 
若眾緣和合 是中無果者
是則眾因緣 與非因緣同 
| gal te rgyu daṅ rkyen rnams kyi | | tshogs (4)la ’bras bu med na ni |
| rgyu rnams daṅ ni rkyen dag kyaṅ | | rgyu rkyen ma yin mtshuṅs par ’gyur | 
If the fruit does not exist in the combination of cause and conditions, the causes and conditions would be comparable to non-causes and conditions. 
hetuṃ phalasya dattvā ca yadi hetur nirudhyate |
yad dattaṃ yan nirudhaṃ ca hetor ātmadvayaṃ bhavet ||5|| 
若因與果因 作因已而滅
是因有二體 一與一則滅 
| gal te rgyus ni ’bras bu la | | rgyu byin nas ni ’gag ’gyur na |
| gaṅ byin pa daṅ gaṅ ’gags pa’i | | rgyu yi bdag ñid gñis su ’gyur | 
If the cause stops once it has given the cause to the fruit, there would be a double nature of the cause: one that gives and one that stops. 
hetuṃ phalasyādattvā ca yadi hetur nirudhyate |
hetau niruddhe jātaṃ tat phalam āhetukaṃ bhavet ||6|| 
若因不與果 作因已而滅
因滅而果生 是果則無因 
| gal te rgyus ni ’bras bu la | | (5)rgyu ma byin par ’gag ’gyur na |
| rgyu ’gags nas ni skyes pa yi | | ’bras bu de dag rgyu med ’gyur | 
If the cause stops without having given the cause to the fruit, those fruits which are born after the cause has stopped would be uncaused. 
phalaṃ sahaiva sāmagryā yadi prādurbhavet punaḥ |
ekakālau prasajyete janako yaś ca janyate ||7|| 
若眾緣合時 而有果生者
生者及可生 則為一時俱 
| gal te tshogs daṅ lhan cig tu | | ’bras bu yaṅ ni skye ’gyur na |
| skyed par byed daṅ bskyed bya gaṅ | | dus gcig par ni thal bar ’gyur | 
If the fruit were also born at the same time as the combination, it would follow that the producer and the produced would be simultaneous. 
pūrvam eva ca sāmagryāḥ phalaṃ prādurbhaved yadi |
hetupratyayanirmuktaṃ phalam āhetukaṃ bhavet ||8|| 
若先有果生 而後眾緣合
此即離因緣 名為無因果 
| gal te tshogs pa’i sṅa rol (6)du | | ’bras bu skyes par gyur na ni |
| rgyu daṅ rkyen rnams med pa yi | | ’bras bu rgyu med ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | 
If the fruit were born prior to the combination, there would occur an uncaused fruit which has no cause and conditions. 
niruddhe cet phalaṃ hetau hetoḥ saṃkramaṇaṃ bhavet |
pūrvajātasya hetoś ca punarjanma prasajyate ||9|| 
若因變為果 因即至於果
是則前生因 生已而復生 
| gal te rgyu ’gags ’bras bu na | | rgyu ni kun tu ’pho bar ’gyur |
| sṅon skyes pa yi rgyu yaṅ ni | | yaṅ skye bar ni thal bar ’gyur | 
If [when] a cause stops, it is forever transferred to the fruit, then it would follow that the cause which was born before would be born again. 
janayet phalam utpannaṃ niruddho ’staṃgataḥ katham |
hetus tiṣṭhann api kathaṃ phalena janayed vṛtaḥ ||10|| 
云何因滅失 而能生於果
又若因在果 云何因生果 
| ’gags pa nub par gyur pa yis | | (7)’bras bu skyes pa ji ltar skyed |
| ’bras bu daṅ ni ’brel ba’i rgyu | | gnas pas kyaṅ ni ji ltar skyed | 
How can the production of fruit be produced by the stopping and disappearing [of something]? Also how can fruit be produced by related causes which persist with it? 
athāvṛtaḥ phalenāsau katamaj janayet phalam |
na hy adṛṣṭvā na dṛṣṭvāpi hetur janayate phalam ||11|| 
若因遍有果 更生何等果
因見不見果 是二俱不生 
| ci ste rgyu ’bras ma ’brel na | | ’bras bu gaṅ źig skyed par byed |
| rgyus ni mthoṅ daṅ ma mthoṅ bar | | ’bras bu skyed par mi byed do | 
If cause and fruit are not related, what fruit can be produced? Causes do not produce fruits they either see or don’t see. 
nātītasya hy atītena phalasya saha hetunā |
nājātena na jātena saṃgatir jātu vidyate ||12|| 
若言過去因 而於過去果
未來現在果 是則終不合 
| ’bras bu ’das pa rgyu ’das daṅ | | ma skyes pa daṅ (12a1)skyes pa daṅ |
| lhan cig phrad par ’gyur pa ni | | nam yaṅ yod pa ma yin no | 
The simultaneous connection of a past fruit with a past, a future and a present cause never exists. 
na jātasya hy ajātena phalasya saha hetunā |
nātītena na jātena saṃgatir jātu vidyate ||13|| 
若言未來因 而於未來果
現在過去果 是則終不合 
| ’bras bu skyes pa rgyu ma skyes | | ’das pa daṅ ni skyes pa daṅ |
| lhan cig phrad par ’gyur pa ni | | nam yaṅ yod pa ma yin no | 
The simultaneous connection of a present fruit with a future, a past and a present cause never exists. 
nājātasya hi jātena phalasya saha hetunā |
nājātena na naṣṭena saṃgatir jātu vidyate ||14|| 
若言現在因 而於現在果
未來過去果 是則終不合 
| ’bras bu ma skyes rgyu skyes daṅ | | ma skyes pa daṅ ’das pa daṅ | (2)lhan cig phrad par ’gyur ba ni | | nam yaṅ yod pa ma yin no | 
The simultaneous connection of a future fruit with a present, a future and a past cause never exists. 
asatyāṃ saṃgatau hetuḥ kathaṃ janayate phalam |
satyāṃ vā saṃgatau hetuḥ kathaṃ janayate phalam ||15|| 
若不和合者 因何能生果
若有和合者 因何能生果 
| phrad pa yod pa ma yin na | | rgyus ni ’bras bu ji ltar skyed |
| phrad pa yod pa yin na yaṅ | | rgyus ni ’bras bu ji ltar skyed | 
When there is no connection, how can a cause produce fruit? Even when there is connection, how can a cause produce fruit? 
hetuḥ phalena śūnyaś cet kathaṃ janayate phalam |
hetuḥ phalenāśūnyaś cet kathaṃ janayate phalam ||16|| 
若因空無果 因何能生果
若因不空果 因何能生果 
| gal te ’bras bus stoṅ pa’i rgyus | | ji ltar ’bras bu skyed par byed |
| gal te ’bras bus mi stoṅ (3)rgyus | | ji ltar ’bras bu skyed par byed | 
If a cause is empty of fruit, how can it produce fruit? If a cause is not empty of fruit, how can it produce fruit? 
phalaṃ notpatsyate ’śūnyam aśūnyaṃ na nirotsyate |
aniruddham anutpannam aśūnyaṃ tad bhaviṣyati ||17|| 
果不空不生 果不空不滅
以果不空故 不生亦不滅 
| ’bras bu mi stoṅ skye mi ’gyur | | mi stoṅ ’gag par mi ’gyur ro |
| mi stoṅ de ni mi ’gags daṅ | | ma skyes par yaṅ ’gyur pa yin | 
Unempty fruit would not be produced; the unempty would not stop. That unempty is unstoppable and also unproducable. 
katham utpatsyate śūnyaṃ kathaṃ śūnyaṃ nirotsyate |
śūnyam apy aniruddhaṃ tad anutpannaṃ prasajyate ||18|| 
果空故不生 果空故不滅
以果是空故 不生亦不滅 
| stoṅ pa ji ltar skye ’gyur źiṅ | | stoṅ pa ji ltar ’gag par ’gyur |
| stoṅ pa de yaṅ ma ’gags daṅ | | ma skyes (4)par yaṅ thal bar ’gyur | 
How would empty [fruit] be produced? And how would the empty stop? It follows that that empty too is unstoppable and also unproducable. 
hetoḥ phalasya caikatvaṃ na hi jātūpapadyate |
hetoḥ phalasya cānyatvaṃ na hi jātūpapadyate ||19|| 
因果是一者 是事終不然
因果若異者 是事亦不然 
| rgyu daṅ ’bras bu gcig ñid du | | nam yaṅ ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| rgyu daṅ ’bras bu gźan ñid du | | nam yaṅ ’thad par mi ’gyur ro | 
It is never possible that cause and fruit are identical. It is never possible that cause and fruit are other. 
ekatve phalahetvoḥ syād aikyaṃ janakajanyayoḥ |
pṛthaktve phalahetvoḥ syāt tulyo hetur ahetunā ||20|| 
若因果是一 生及所生一
若因果是異 因則同非因 
| rgyu daṅ ’bras bu gcig ñid na | | bskyed bya skyed byed gcig tu ’gyur |
| rgyu daṅ ’bras bu gźan ñid na | | rgyu daṅ rgyu min (5)mtshuṅs par ’gyur | 
If cause and fruit were identical, produce and producer would be identical. If cause and fruit were other, cause and non-cause would be similar. 
phalaṃ svabhāvasadbhūtaṃ kiṃ hetur janayiṣyati |
phalaṃ svabhāvāsadbhūtaṃ kiṃ hetur janayiṣyati ||21|| 
若果定有性 因為何所生
若果定無性 因為何所生 
| ’bras bu ṅo bo ñid yod na | | rgyus ni ci źig skyed par byed |
| ’bras bu ṅo bo ñid med na | | rgyus ni ci źig skyed par byed | 
If fruit existed essentially, what would a cause produce? If fruit did not exist essentially, what would a cause produce? 
na cājanayamānasya hetutvam upapadyate |
hetutvānupapattau ca phalaṃ kasya bhaviṣyati ||22|| 
因不生果者 則無有因相
若無有因相 誰能有是果 
| skyed par byed pa ma yin na | | rgyu ñid ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| rgyu ñid ’thad pa yod min na | | ’bras bu gaṅ gi yin par ’gyur | 
If it were not productive, the cause itself would be impossible. If the cause itself were impossible, whose would the fruit be? 
na ca pratyayahetūnām iyam ātmānam ātmanā |
yā sāmagrī janayate sā kathaṃ janayet phalam ||23|| 
若從眾因緣 而有和合生
和合自不生 云何能生果 
| rgyu rnams (6)daṅ ni rkyen dag gi | | tshogs pa gaṅ yin de yin ni |
| bdag gis bdag ñid mi skyed na | | ’bras bu ji ltar skyed par byed | 
If whatever is a combination of causes and conditions does not produce itself by itself, how could it produce fruit? 
na sāmagrīkṛtaṃ phalaṃ nāsāmagrīkṛtaṃ phalam |
asti pratyayasāmagrī kuta eva phalaṃ vinā ||24|| 
是故果不從 緣合不合生
若無有果者 何處有合法 
| de phyir tshogs pas byas pa med | | tshogs min byas pa’i ’bras bu med |
| ’bras bu yod pa ma yin na | | rkyen gyi tshogs pa ga la yod | 
Therefore, there is no fruit which has been made by combination [or] made by non-combination. If fruit does not exist, where can a combination of conditions exist? 
sāmagrīparīkṣā nāma vimśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀因果品第二十(二十四偈) 
| tshogs pa brtag pa (7)źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu pa’o || 
Investigation of Combination 
vinā vā saha vā nāsti vibhavaḥ saṃbhavena vai |
vinā vā saha vā nāsti saṃbhavo vibhavena vai ||1|| 
離成及共成 是中無有壞
離壞及共壞 是中亦無成 
|| ’jig pa ’byuṅ ba med par ram | | lhan cig yod pa ñid ma yin |
| ’byuṅ ba ’jig pa med par ram | | lhan cig yod pa ñid ma yin | 
Passing does not exist without or together with rising. Rising does not exist without or together with passing. 
bhaviṣyati kathaṃ nāma vibhavaḥ saṃbhavaṃ vinā |
vinaiva janma maraṇaṃ vibhavo nodbhavaṃ vinā ||2|| 
若離於成者 云何而有壞
如離生有死 是事則不然 
| ’jig pa ’byuṅ ba med par ni | | ji lta bur na yod par ’gyur |
| skye ba med par ’chi bar ’gyur | | ’jig (12b1)pa ’byuṅ ba med par med | 
How can passing exist without rising? Is there death without birth? There is no passing without rising. 
saṃbhavenaiva vibhavaḥ kathaṃ saha bhaviṣyati |
na janma maraṇaṃ caivaṃ tulyakālaṃ hi vidyate ||3|| 
成壞共有者 云何有成壞
如世間生死 一時俱不然 
| ’jig pa ’byuṅ daṅ lhan cig tu | | ji ltar yod pa ñid du ’gyur |
| ’chi ba skye daṅ dus gcig tu | | yod pa ñid ni ma yin no | 
How could passing exist together with rising? Death does not exist at the same time as birth. 
bhaviṣyati kathaṃ nāma saṃbhavo vibhavaṃ vinā |
anityatā hi bhāveṣu na kadācin na vidyate ||4|| 
若離於壞者 云何當有成
無常未曾有 不在諸法時 
| ’byuṅ ba ’jig pa med par ni | | ji lta bur na yod par ’gyur |
| dṅos po rnams la mi rtag ñid | | nam yaṅ med pa ma yin (2)no | 
How could rising exist without passing? Things are never not impermanent. 
saṃbhavo vibhavenaiva kathaṃ saha bhaviṣyati |
na janma maraṇaṃ caiva tulyakālaṃ hi vidyate ||5|| 
成壞共無成 離亦無有成
是二俱不可 云何當有成 
| ’byuṅ ba ’jig daṅ lhan cig tu | | ji ltar yod pa ñid du ’gyur |
| skye ba ’chi daṅ dus gcig tu | | yod pa ñid ni ma yin no | 
How could rising exist together with passing? Birth does not exist at the same time as death. 
sahānyo’nyena vā siddhir vinānyo’nyena vā yayoḥ |
na vidyate tayoḥ siddhiḥ kathaṃ nu khalu vidyate ||6|| 
 
| gaṅ dag phan tshun lhan cig gam | | phan tshun lhan cig ma yin par |
| grub pa yod pa ma yin pa | | de dag grub pa ji ltar yod | 
How can those that are not established either mutually together or not mutually together be established? 
kṣayasya saṃbhavo nāsti nākṣayasyāsti saṃbhavaḥ |
kṣayasya vibhavo nāsti vibhavo nākṣayasya ca ||7|| 
盡則無有成 不盡亦無成
盡則無有壞 不盡亦不壞 
| zad la ’byuṅ ba (3)yod ma yin | | ma zad pa la’aṅ ’byuṅ ba med |
| zad la ’jig pa yod ma yin | | ma zad pa la’aṅ ’jig pa med | 
The finished does not rise; the unfinished too does not rise; the finished does not pass; the unfinished too does not pass. 
saṃbhavo vibhavaś caiva vinā bhāvaṃ na vidyate |
saṃbhavaṃ vibhavaṃ caiva vinā bhāvo na vidyate ||8|| 
若離於成壞 是亦無有法
若當離於法 亦無有成壞 
| dṅos po yod pa ma yin par | | ’byuṅ daṅ ’jig pa yod ma yin |
| ’byuṅ daṅ ’jig pa med par ni | | dṅos po yod pa ma yin no | 
Rising and passing do not exist without the existence of things. Things do not exist without the existence of rising and passing. 
saṃbhavo vibhavaś caiva na śūnyasyopapadyate |
saṃbhavo vibhavaś caiva nāśūnyasyopapadyate ||9|| 
若法性空者 誰當有成壞
若性不空者 亦無有成壞 
| stoṅ la ’byuṅ daṅ ’jig pa (4)dag | ’thad pa ñid ni ma yin no |
| mi stoṅ pa la’aṅ ’byuṅ ’jig dag | ’thad pa ñid ni ma yin no | 
Rising and passing are not possible for the empty; rising, passing are not possible for the non-empty also. 
saṃbhavo vibhavaś caiva naika ity upapadyate |
saṃbhavo vibhavaś caiva na nānety upapadyate ||10|| 
成壞若一者 是事則不然
成壞若異者 是事亦不然 
| ’byuṅ ba daṅ ni ’jig pa dag | gcig pa ñid du mi ’thad do |
| ’byuṅ ba daṅ ni ’jig pa dag | gźan ñid du yaṅ mi ’thad do | 
Rising and passing cannot possibly be one; rising and passing also cannot possibly be other. 
dṛśyate saṃbhavaś caiva vibhavaś caiva te bhavet |
dṛśyate saṃbhavaś caiva mohād vibhava eva ca ||11|| 
若謂以眼見 而有生滅者
則為是癡妄 而見有生滅 
| ’byuṅ ba daṅ ni ’jig pa dag | mthoṅ ṅo sñam du (5)khyod sems na |
| ’byuṅ ba daṅ ni ’jig pa dag | | gti mug ñid kyis mthoṅ ba yin | 
If you think that you can see rising and passing, rising and passing are seen by delusion. 
na bhāvāj jāyate bhāvo bhāvo ’bhāvān na jāyate |
nābhāvāj jāyate ’bhāvo ’bhāvo bhāvān na jāyate ||12|| 
從法不生法 亦不生非法
從非法不生 法及於非法 
| dṅos po dṅos las mi skye ste | | dṅos po dṅos med las mi skye |
| dṅos med dṅos med mi skye ste | | dṅos med dṅos las mi skye’o | 
Things are not created from things; things are not created from nothing; nothing is not created from nothing; nothing is not created from things. 
na svato jāyate bhāvaḥ parato naiva jāyate |
na svataḥ parataś caiva jāyate jāyate kutaḥ ||13|| 
法不從自生 亦不從他生
不從自他生 云何而有生 
| dṅos po bdag las mi skye ste | | gźan las skye ba ñid (6)ma yin |
| bdag daṅ gźan las skye ba ni | | yod min ji ltar skye bar ’gyur | 
Things are not created from themselves, nor are they created from something else; they are not created from [both] themselves and something else. How are they created? 
bhāvam abhyupapannasya śāśvatocchedadarśanam |
prasajyate sa bhāvo hi nityo ’nityo ’tha vā bhavet ||14|| 
若有所受法 即墮於斷常
當知所受法 為常為無常 
| dṅos po yod par khas blaṅs na | | rtag daṅ chad par lta bar ni |
| thal bar ’gyur te dṅos de ni | | rtag daṅ mi rtag ’gyur phyir ro | 
If you assert the existence of things, the views of eternalism and annihilationism will follow, because things are permanent and impermanent. 
bhāvam abhyupapannasya naivocchedo na śāśvatam |
udayavyayasaṃtānaḥ phalahetvor bhavaḥ sa hi ||15|| 
所有受法者 不墮於斷常
因果相續故 不斷亦不常 
| dṅos po yod par khas blaṅs kyaṅ | | chad par mi ’gyur rtag mi (7)’gyur |
| ’bras bu rgyu yi ’byuṅ ’jig gi | | rgyun de srid pa yin phyir ro | 
If you assert the existence of things, eternalism and annihilationism will not be, because the continuity of the rising and passing of cause -effect is becoming. 
udayavyayasaṃtānaḥ phalahetvor bhavaḥ sa cet |
vyayasyāpunarutpatter hetūcchedaḥ prasajyate ||16|| 
若因果生滅 相續而不斷
滅更不生故 因即為斷滅 
| ’bras bu rgyu yi ’byuṅ ’jig gi | | rgyun de srid pa yin ’gyur na |
| ’jig la yaṅ skye med pa’i phyir | | rgyu ni chad par thal bar ’gyur | 
If the continuity of the rising and passing of cause-effect is becoming, because what has passed will not be created again, it will follow that the cause is annihilated. 
sadbhāvasya svabhāvena nāsadbhāvaś ca yujyate |
nirvāṇakāle cocchedaḥ praśamād bhavasaṃtateḥ ||17|| 
法住於自性 不應有有無
涅槃滅相續 則墮於斷滅 
| dṅos po ṅo bo ñid yod na | | dṅos med ’gyur bar mi rigs so |
| (13a1)mya ṅan ’das pa’i dus na chad | | srid rgyun rab tu źi phyir ro | 
If things exist essentially, it would be unreasonable [for them] to become nothing. At the time of nirvana [they] would be annihilated, because the continuity of becoming is totally pacified. 
carame na niruddhe ca prathamo yujyate bhavaḥ |
carame nāniruddhe ca prathamo yujyate bhavaḥ ||18|| 
若初有滅者 則無有後有
初有若不滅 亦無有後有 
| tha ma ’gags par gyur pa na | | srid pa daṅ po rigs mi ’gyur |
| tha ma ’gags par ma gyur tshe | | srid pa daṅ po rigs mi ’gyur | 
If the end stops, it is unreasonable for there to be a beginning of becoming. When the end does not stop, it is unreasonable for there to be a beginning of becoming. 
nirudhyamāne carame prathamo yadi jāyate |
nirudhyamāna ekaḥ syāj jāyamāno ’paro bhavet ||19|| 
若初有滅時 而後有生者
滅時是一有 生時是一有 
| gal te tha ma ’gag bźin na | | daṅ po skye bar (2)’gyur na ni |
| ’gag bźin pa ni gcig ’gyur źiṅ | | skye bźin pa yaṅ gźan du ’gyur | 
If the beginning is created while the end is stopping, the stopping would be one and the creating would be another. 
na cen nirudhyamānaś ca jāyamānaś ca yujyate |
sārdhaṃ ca mriyate yeṣu teṣu skandheṣu jāyate ||20|| 
若言於生滅 而謂一時者
則於此陰死 即於此陰生 
| gal te ’gag bźin skye bźin dag | | lhan cig tu yaṅ rigs min na |
| phuṅ po gaṅ la ’chi ’gyur ba | | de la skye ba ’byuṅ ’gyur ram | 
If it is also unreasonable for stopping and creating to be together, aren’t the aggregates that die also those that are created? 
evaṃ triṣv api kāleṣu na yuktā bhavasaṃtatiḥ |
triṣu kāleṣu yā nāsti sā kathaṃ bhavasaṃtatiḥ ||21|| 
三世中求有 相續不可得
若三世中無 何有有相續 
| de ltar dus gsum dag tu (3)yaṅ | | srid pa’i rgyun ni mi rigs na |
| dus gsum dag tu gaṅ med pa | | de ni ji ltar srid pa’i rgyun | 
Likewise, if the continuity of becoming is not reasonable at any of the three times, how can there be a continuity of becoming which isnon-existent in the three times? 
saṃbhavavibhavaparīkṣā nāmaikaviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀成壞品第二十一(二十偈) 
| ’byuṅ ba daṅ ’jig pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu gcig pa’o || 
Investigation of Rising and Passing 
skandhā na nānyaḥ skandhebhyo nāsmin skandhā na teṣu saḥ |
tathāgataḥ skandhavān na katamo ’tra tathāgataḥ ||1|| 
非陰不離陰 此彼不相在
如來不有陰 何處有如來 
|| phuṅ min phuṅ po las gźan min | | de la phuṅ med de der med |
| de bźin (4)gśegs pa phuṅ ldan min | | de bźin gśegs pa gaṅ źig yin | 
Not the aggregates, not other than the aggregates; the aggregates are not in him; he is not in them: the Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. What is the Tathagata? 
buddhaḥ skandhān upādāya yadi nāsti svabhāvataḥ |
svabhāvataś ca yo nāsti kutaḥ sa parabhāvataḥ ||2|| 
陰合有如來 則無有自性
若無有自性 云何因他有 
| gal te saṅs rgyas phuṅ po la | | brten nas raṅ bźin las yod min |
| raṅ bźin las ni gaṅ med pa | | de gźan dṅos las ga la yod | 
If the buddha depends on the aggregates, he does not exist from an own-nature. How can that which does not exist from an own-nature exist from an other-nature? 
pratītya parabhāvaṃ yaḥ so ’nātmety upapadyate |
yaś cānātmā sa ca kathaṃ bhaviṣyati tathāgataḥ ||3|| 
法若因他生 是即為非我
若法非我者 云何是如來 
| gaṅ źig gźan gyi dṅos brten nas | | de bdag ñid du (5)mi ’thad do |
| gaṅ źig bdag ñid med pa de | | ji ltar de bźin gśegs par ’gyur | 
It is not tenable for something dependent on other-nature to be self-existent. How can that which has no self-existence be tathagata? 
yadi nāsti svabhāvaś ca parabhāvaḥ kathaṃ bhavet |
svabhāvaparabhāvābhyām ṛte kaḥ sa tathāgataḥ ||4|| 
若無有自性 云何有他性
離自性他性 何名為如來 
| gal te raṅ bźin yod min na | | gźan dṅos yod par ji ltar ’gyur |
| raṅ bźin daṅ ni gźan dṅos dag | | ma gtogs de bźin gśegs de gaṅ | 
If self-nature does not exist, how can there be the existence of other-nature? What is a Tathagata apart from own-nature and other-nature? 
skandhān yady anupādāya bhavet kaścit tathāgataḥ |
sa idānīm upādadyād upādāya tato bhavet ||5|| 
若不因五陰 先有如來者
以今受陰故 則說為如來 
| gal te phuṅ po ma brten par | | (6)de bźin gśegs pa ’ga’ yod na |
| de ni da gdoṅ rten ’gyur źiṅ | | brten nas de nas ’gyur la rag | 
If there exists a tathagata [who is] not depending on the aggregates, he exists in depending [on them] now and will henceforth depend. 
skandhāṃś cāpy anupādāya nāsti kaścit tathāgataḥ |
yaś ca nāsty anupādāya sa upādāsyate katham ||6|| 
今實不受陰 更無如來法
若以不受無 今當云何受 
| phuṅ po rnams la ma brten par | | de bźin gśegs pa ’ga’ yaṅ med |
| gaṅ źig ma brten yod min na | | des ni ji ltar ñer len ’gyur | 
If there does not exist a tathagata [who is]not depending on the aggregates, how does he grasp [depend on? them]? 
na bhavaty anupādattam upādānaṃ ca kiṃ cana |
na cāsti nirupādānaḥ kathaṃ cana tathāgataḥ ||7|| 
若其未有受 所受不名受
無有無受法 而名為如來 
| ñe bar blaṅs pa ma yin (7)pa | | ñe bar len par cis mi ’gyur |
| ñe bar len pa med pa yi | | de bźin gśegs pa ci yaṅ med | 
[Since] there is nothing to be grasped/dependent on, there can be no grasping/depending. There is no tathagata at all who is without grasping/depending. 
tattvānyatvena yo nāsti mṛgyamāṇaś ca pañcadhā |
upādānena sa kathaṃ prajñapyate tathāgataḥ ||8|| 
若於一異中 如來不可得
五種求亦無 云何受中有 
| rnam pa lṅas ni btsal byas na | | gaṅ źig de ñid gźan ñid du |
| med pa’i de bźin gśegs pa de | | ñe bar len pas ji ltar gdags | 
If having examined in five ways, how can that tathagata who does not exist as that one or the other be [conventionally] understood by grasping/depending? 
yad apīdam upādānaṃ tat svabhāvān na vidyate |
svabhāvataś ca yan nāsti kutas tat parabhāvataḥ ||9|| 
又所受五陰 不從自性有
若無自性者 云何有他性 
| gaṅ źig ñe bar blaṅ ba de | | de ni (13b1)raṅ bźin las yod min |
| bdag gi dṅos las gaṅ med pa | | de gźan dṅos las yod re skan | 
That which is grasped/depended on does not exist from its own nature. It is impossible for that which does not exist from its own nature to exist from another nature. 
evaṃ śūnyam upādānam upādātā ca sarvaśaḥ |
prajñapyate ca śūnyena kathaṃ śūnyas tathāgataḥ ||10|| 
以如是義故 受空受者空
云何當以空 而說空如來 
| de ltar ñer blaṅ ñer len po | | rnam pa kun gyis stoṅ pa yin |
| stoṅ pas de bźin gśegs stoṅ pa | | ji lta bur na ’dogs par ’gyur | 
In that way, what is grasped/depended on and what grasps/depends are empty in every aspect. How can an empty tathagata be [conventionally] understood by what is empty? 
śūnyam iti na vaktavyam aśūnyam iti vā bhavet |
ubhayaṃ nobhayaṃ ceti prajñaptyarthaṃ tu kathyate ||11|| 
空則不可說 非空不可說
共不共叵說 但以假名說 
| stoṅ ṅo źes kyaṅ mi brjod de | | mi (2)stoṅ źes kyaṅ mi bya źiṅ |
| gñis daṅ gñis min mi bya ste | | gdags pa’i don du brjod par bya | 
Do not say “empty,” or “not empty,” or “both,” or “neither:” these are mentioned for the sake of [conventional] understanding. 
śāśvatāśāśvatādy atra kutaḥ śānte catuṣṭayam |
antānantādi cāpy atra kutaḥ śānte catuṣṭayam ||12|| 
寂滅相中無 常無常等四
寂滅相中無 邊無邊等四 
| rtag daṅ mi rtag la sogs bźi | | źi ba ’di la ga la yod |
| mtha’ daṅ mtha’ med la sogs bźi | | źi ba ’di la ga la yod | 
Where can the four such as permanence and impermanence exist in this peaceful one? Where can the four such as end and no-end [of the world] exist in this peaceful one? 
ghanagrāho gṛhītas tu yenāstīti tathāgataḥ |
nāstīti sa vikalpayan nirvṛtasyāpi kalpayet ||13|| 
邪見深厚者 則說無如來
如來寂滅相 分別有亦非 
| gaṅ gis de bźin gśegs yod ces | | (3)’dzin pa stug po bzuṅ gyur pa |
| de ni mya ṅan ’das pa la | | med ces rnam rtog rtog par byed | 
Those who hold the dense apprehension, “the tathagata exists” conceive the thought, “he does not exist in nirvana.” 
svabhāvataś ca śūnye ’smiṃś cintā naivopapadyate |
paraṃ nirodhād bhavati buddho na bhavatīti vā ||14|| 
如是性空中 思惟亦不可
如來滅度後 分別於有無 
| raṅ bźin gyis ni stoṅ de la | | saṅs rgyas mya ṅan ’das nas ni |
| yod do źe’am med do źes | | bsam pa ’thad pa ñid mi ’gyur | 
For that one empty of own-nature, it is entirely inappropriate to think that once the buddha has nirvana-ed he either “exists” or “does not exist.” 
prapañcayanti ye buddhaṃ prapañcātītam avyayam |
te prapañcahatāḥ sarve na paśyanti tathāgatam ||15|| 
如來過戲論 而人生戲論
戲論破慧眼 是皆不見佛 
| gaṅ dag saṅs rgyas spros ’das śiṅ | | zad (4)pa med la spros byed pa |
| spros pas ñams pa de kun gyis | | de bźin gśegs pa mthoṅ mi ’gyur | 
Those who make fixations about Buddha who is beyond fixations and without deterioration -- all those who are damaged by fixations do not see the tathagata. 
tathāgato yatsvabhāvas tatsvabhāvam idaṃ jagat |
tathāgato niḥsvabhāvo niḥsvabhāvam idaṃ jagat ||16|| 
如來所有性 即是世間性
如來無有性 世間亦無性 
| de bźin gśegs pa’i raṅ bźin gaṅ | | de ni ’gro ’di’i raṅ bźin yin |
| de bźin gśegs pa raṅ bźin med | | ’gro ba ’di yi raṅ bźin med | 
Whatever is the own-nature of the tathagata, that is the own-nature of this world. The tathagata has no own-nature. This world has no own-nature. 
tathāgataparīkṣā nāma dvāviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
觀如來品第二十二(十六偈) 
| de bźin gśegs (5)pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu gñis pa’o || 
Investigation of the Tathagata 
saṃkalpaprabhavo rāgo dveṣo mohaś ca kathyate |
śubhāśubhaviparyāsān saṃbhavanti pratītya hi ||1|| 
從憶想分別 生於貪恚癡
淨不淨顛倒 皆從眾緣生 
|| ’dod chags źe sdaṅ gti mug rnams | | kun tu rtog las ’byuṅ bar gsuṅs |
| sdug daṅ mi sdug phyin ci log | | brten pa ñid las kun tu ’byuṅ | 
It is said that desire, hatred, stupidity arise from conceptuality; they arise in dependence on the pleasant, the unpleasant and confusion. [they arise in dependence on confusion about the pleasant and unpleasant] 
śubhāśubhaviparyāsān saṃbhavanti pratītya ye |
te svabhāvān na vidyante tasmāt kleśā na tattvataḥ ||2|| 
若因淨不淨 顛倒生三毒
三毒即無性 故煩惱無實 
| gaṅ dag sdug daṅ mi sdug daṅ | | phyin ci log las brten ’byuṅ ba |
| (6)de dag raṅ bźin las med de | | de phyir ñon moṅs yaṅ dag med | 
Whatever arises in dependence upon the pleasant, the unpleasant and confusion, (whatever arises in dependence on confusion about the pleasant and unpleasant) they have no own-nature, therefore, afflictions do not really exist (do not exist in themselves). 
ātmano ’stitvanāstitve na kathaṃ cic ca sidhyataḥ |
taṃ vināstitvanāstitve kleśānāṃ sidhyataḥ katham ||3|| 
我法有以無 是事終不成
無我諸煩惱 有無亦不成 
| bdag gi yod ñid med ñid ni | | ji lta bur yaṅ grub pa med |
| de med ñon moṅs rnams kyi ni | | yod ñid med ñid ji ltar ’grub | 
The existence or non-existence of self is not established in any way. Without that, how can the existence or non-existence of afflictions be established? 
kasya cid dhi bhavantīme kleśāḥ sa ca na sidhyati |
kaścid āho vinā kaṃcit santi kleśā na kasyacit ||4|| 
誰有此煩惱 是即為不成
若離是而有 煩惱則無屬 
| ñon moṅs de dag gaṅ gi yin | | de yaṅ grub pa yod ma yin |
| ’ga’ med (7)par ni gaṅ gi yaṅ | | ñon moṅs pa dag yod ma yin | 
These afflictions are someone’s. But that [someone] is not established. Without [someone], the afflictions are not anyone’s. 
svakāyadṛṣṭivat kleśāḥ kliṣṭe santi na pañcadhā |
svakāyadṛṣṭivat kliṣṭaṃ kleśeṣv api na pañcadhā ||5|| 
如身見五種 求之不可得
煩惱於垢心 五求亦不得 
| raṅ lus lta bźin ñon moṅs rnams | | ñon moṅs can la rnam lṅar med |
| raṅ lus lta bźin ñon moṅs can | | ñon moṅs pa la rnam lṅar med | 
Like [the self apprehended in] the view of one’s own body, the afflictions do not exist in five ways in the afflicted. Like [the self apprehended in] the view of one’s own body, the afflicted does not exist in five ways in the afflictions. 
svabhāvato na vidyante śubhāśubhaviparyayāḥ |
pratītya katamān kleśāḥ śubhāśubhaviparyayān ||6|| 
淨不淨顛倒 是則無自性
云何因此二 而生諸煩惱 
| sdug daṅ mi sdug phyin ci log | raṅ bźin las ni yod min na |
| (14a1)sdug daṅ mi sdug phyin ci log | | brten nas ñon moṅs gaṅ dag yin | 
If confusion about the pleasant and unpleasant does not exist from its own nature, what afflictions can depend on confusion about the pleasant and unpleasant? 
rūpaśabdarasasparśā gandhā dharmāś ca ṣaḍvidham |
vastu rāgasya doṣasya mohasya ca vikalpyate ||7|| 
色聲香味觸 及法為六種
如是之六種 是三毒根本 
| gzugs sgra ro daṅ reg pa daṅ | | dri daṅ chos dag rnam drug ni |
| gźi ste ’dod chags źe sdaṅ daṅ | | gti mug gi ni yin par brtags | 
Colour/shape, sound, taste, tactile sensation, smell and dharmas: these six are conceived as the basis of desire, hatred and stupidity. 
rūpaśabdarasasparśā gandhā dharmāś ca kevalāḥ |
gandharvanagarākārā marīcisvapnasaṃnibhāḥ ||8|| 
色聲香味觸 及法體六種
皆空如炎夢 如乾闥婆城 
| gzugs sgra ro daṅ reg pa daṅ | | dri daṅ chos dag (2)’ba’ źig ste |
| dri za’i groṅ khyer lta bu daṅ | | smig rgyu rmi lam ’dra ba yin | 
Colour/shape, sound, taste, tactile sensation, smell and dharmas: these are like gandharva-cities and similar to mirages, dreams. 
aśubhaṃ vā śubhaṃ vāpi kutas teṣu bhaviṣyati |
māyāpuruṣakalpeṣu pratibimbasameṣu ca ||9|| 
如是六種中 何有淨不淨
猶如幻化人 亦如鏡中像 
| sgyu ma’i skyes bu lta bu daṅ | | gzugs brñan ’dra ba de dag la |
| sdug pa daṅ ni mi sdug pa | | ’byuṅ bar yaṅ ni ga la ’gyur | 
How can the pleasant and unpleasant occur in those [things] which are like phantoms and similar to reflections? 
anapekṣya śubhaṃ nāsty aśubhaṃ prajñapayemahi |
yat pratītya śubhaṃ tasmāc chubhaṃ naivopapadyate ||10|| 
不因於淨相 則無有不淨
因淨有不淨 是故無不淨 
| gaṅ la brten nas sdug pa źes | | gdags par bya ba mi sdug pa |
| sdug (3)la mi ltos yod min pas | | de phyir sdug pa ’thad ma yin | 
Something is called “pleasant” in dependence on the unpleasant. Since that would not exist without relation to the pleasant, therefore, the pleasant is not tenable. 
anapekṣyāśubhaṃ nāsti śubhaṃ prajñapayemahi |
yat pratītyāśubhaṃ tasmād aśubhaṃ naiva vidyate ||11|| 
不因於不淨 則亦無有淨
因不淨有淨 是故無有淨 
| gaṅ la brten nas mi sdug par | | gdags par bya ba sdug pa ni |
| mi sdug mi stos yod min pas | | de phyir mi sdug ’thad ma yin | 
Something is called “unpleasant” in dependence on the pleasant. Since that would not exist without relation to the unpleasant, therefore, the unpleasant is not tenable. 
avidyamāne ca śubhe kuto rāgo bhaviṣyati |
aśubhe ’vidyamāne ca kuto dveṣo bhaviṣyati ||12|| 
若無有淨者 何由而有貪
若無有不淨 何由而有恚 
| sdug pa yod pa ma yin na | | ’dod chags yod par ga la ’gyur |
| mi (4)sdug yod pa ma yin na | | źe sdaṅ yod par ga la ’gyur | 
If the pleasant does not exist, how can desire exist? If the unpleasant does not exist, how can hatred exist? 
anitye nityam ity evaṃ yadi grāho viparyayaḥ |
nānityaṃ vidyate śūnye kuto grāho viparyayaḥ ||13|| 
於無常著常 是則名顛倒
空中無有常 何處有常倒 
| gal te mi rtag rtag pa źes | | de ltar ’dzin pa log yin na |
| stoṅ la mi rtag yod min pas | | ’dzin pa ji ltar log pa yin | 
If such an apprehension as “the impermanent is permanent” is confused, since impermanence does not exist in the empty, how can such an apprehension be confused? 
anitye nityam ity evaṃ yadi grāho viparyayaḥ |
anityam ity api grāhaḥ śūnye kiṃ na viparyayaḥ ||14|| 
若於無常中 著無常非倒
空中無無常 何有非顛倒 
| gal te mi rtag rtag go źes | | de ltar ’dzin pa log yin na |
| stoṅ la mi rtag (5)pa’o źes | | ’dzin pa’aṅ ji ltar log ma yin | 
If such an apprehension as “the impermanent is permanent” is confused, how would the apprehension “there is impermanence in the empty” also not be confused? 
yena gṛhṇāti yo grāho grahītā yac ca gṛhyate |
upaśāntāni sarvāṇi tasmād grāho na vidyate ||15|| 
可著著者著 及所用著法
是皆寂滅相 云何而有著 
| gaṅ gis ’dzin daṅ ’dzin gaṅ daṅ | | ’dzin pa po daṅ gaṅ gzuṅ ba |
| thams cad ñe bar źi ba ste | | de phyir ’dzin pa yod ma yin | 
[The means] by which one apprehends, the apprehension [itself], the apprehender and the apprehended: all are completely pacified, therefore there is no apprehending. 
avidyamāne grāhe ca mithyā vā samyag eva vā |
bhaved viparyayaḥ kasya bhavet kasyāviparyayaḥ ||16|| 
若無有著法 言邪是顛倒
言正不顛倒 誰有如是事 
| log pa’am yaṅ dag ñid du ni | | ’dzin pa yod pa ma yin na |
| gaṅ la phyin ci log yod ciṅ | (6)gaṅ la phyin ci ma log yod | 
If there is neither confused nor right apprehension, who is confused and who is not confused? 
na cāpi viparītasya saṃbhavanti viparyayāḥ |
na cāpy aviparītasya saṃbhavanti viparyayāḥ ||17|| 
有倒不生倒 無倒不生倒
倒者不生倒 不倒亦不生 
| phyin ci log tu gyur pa la | | phyin ci log dag mi srid de |
| phyin ci log tu ma gyur la | | phyin ci log dag mi srid de | 
Confusions do not occur for those who are [already] confused; confusions do not occur for those who are not [yet] confused; 
na viparyasyamānasya saṃbhavanti viparyayāḥ |
vimṛśasva svayaṃ kasya saṃbhavanti viparyayāḥ ||18|| 
若於顛倒時 亦不生顛倒
汝可自觀察 誰生於顛倒 
| phyin ci log tu gyur bźin la | | phyin ci log dag mi srid de |
| gaṅ la phyin ci log srid pa | | bdag ñid kyis ni rnam (7)par dpyod | 
confusions do not occur for those who are being confused. For whom do confusions occur? Examine this by yourself! 
anutpannāḥ kathaṃ nāma bhaviṣyanti viparyayāḥ |
viparyayeṣv ajāteṣu viparyayagataḥ kutaḥ ||19|| 
諸顛倒不生 云何有此義
無有顛倒故 何有顛倒者 
| phyin ci log rnams ma skyes na | | ji lta bur na yod par ’gyur |
| phyin ci log rnams skye med na | | phyin ci log can ga la yod | 
If confusions are not born, how can they exist? If confusions are not born, where can there be someone who has confusion? 
na svato jāyate bhāvaḥ parato naiva jāyate |
na svataḥ parataś ceti viparyayagataḥ kutaḥ ||20|| 
 
| dṅos po bdag las mi skye ste | | gźan las skye ba ñid ma yin |
| bdag daṅ gźan las kyaṅ min na | | phyin ci log can ga (14b1)la yod | 
Things are not born from themselves, not born from others. If they are also not from self and others, where can there be someone who has confusion? 
ātmā ca śuci nityaṃ ca sukhaṃ ca yadi vidyate |
ātmā ca śuci nityaṃ ca sukhaṃ ca na viparyayaḥ ||21|| 
若常我樂淨 而是實有者
是常我樂淨 則非是顛倒 
| gal te bdag daṅ gtsaṅ ba daṅ | | rtag daṅ bde ba yod na ni |
| bdag daṅ gtsaṅ daṅ rtag pa daṅ | | bde ba phyin ci log ma yin | 
If self and purity and permanence and happiness were existent, self and purity and permanence and happiness would not be confusions. 
nātmā ca śuci nityaṃ ca sukhaṃ ca yadi vidyate |
anātmā ’śucy anityaṃ ca naiva duḥkhaṃ ca vidyate ||22|| 
若常我樂淨 而實無有者
無常苦不淨 是則亦應無 
| gal te bdag daṅ gtsaṅ ba daṅ | | rtag daṅ bde ba med na ni |
| bdag med mi gtsaṅ mi rtag daṅ | | sdug bsṅal (2)yod pa ma yin no | 
If self and purity and permanence and happiness were non-existent, selflessness, impurity, impermanence and anguish would not exist. 
evaṃ nirudhyate ’vidyā viparyayanirodhanāt |
avidyāyāṃ niruddhāyāṃ saṃskārādyaṃ nirudhyate ||23|| 
如是顛倒滅 無明則亦滅
以無明滅故 諸行等亦滅 
| de ltar phyin ci log ’gags pas | | ma rig pa ni ’gag par ’gyur |
| ma rig ’gags par gyur na ni | | ’du byed la sogs ’gag par ’gyur | 
Thus by stopping confusion, ignorance will stop. If ignorance is stopped, impulsive acts etc. will stop. 
yadi bhūtāḥ svabhāvena kleśāḥ kecid dhi kasyacit |
kathaṃ nāma prahīyeran kaḥ svabhāvaṃ prahāsyati ||24|| 
若煩惱性實 而有所屬者
云何當可斷 誰能斷其性 
| gal te la la’i ñon moṅs pa | | gaṅ dag raṅ bźin gyis yod na |
| ji lta bur (3)na spoṅ bar ’gyur | | yod pa su źig spoṅ bar byed | 
If the afflictions of some existed by their own nature, how could they be let go of? Who can let go of what exists by nature? 
yady abhūtāḥ svabhāvena kleśāḥ kecid dhi kasyacit |
kathaṃ nāma prahīyeran ko ’sadbhāvaṃ prahāsyati ||25|| 
若煩惱虛妄 無性無屬者
云何當可斷 誰能斷無性 
| gal te la la’i ñon moṅs pa | | gaṅ dag raṅ bźin gyis med na |
| ji lta bur na spoṅ bar ’gyur | | med pa su źig spoṅ bar byed | 
If the afflictions of some did not exist by their own nature, how could they be let go of? Who can let go of what does not exist? 
viparyāsaparīkṣā nāma trayoviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀顛倒品第二十三(二十四偈) 
| phyin ci log brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu gsum pa’o || 
Investigation of Error 
yadi śūnyam idaṃ sarvam udayo nāsti na vyayaḥ |
caturṇām āryasatyānām abhāvas te prasajyate ||1|| 
若一切皆空 無生亦無滅
如是則無有 四聖諦之法 
|| (4)gal te ’di dag kun stoṅ na | | ’byuṅ ba med ciṅ ’jig pa med |
| ’phags pa’i bden pa bźi po rnams | | khyod la med par thal bar ’gyur | 
“If all were empty, nothing could come about or perish. It would follow for you that the four ennobling truths could not exist. 
parijñā ca prahāṇaṃ ca bhāvanā sākṣikarma ca |
caturṇām āryasatyānām abhāvān nopapadyate ||2|| 
以無四諦故 見苦與斷集
證滅及修道 如是事皆無 
| ’phags pa’i bden pa bźi med pas | | yoṅs su śes daṅ spoṅ ba daṅ |
| sgom daṅ mṅon du bya ba dag | | ’thad (5)par ’gyur pa ma yin no | 
Since the four ennobling truths would not exist, understanding, letting go, cultivating and realizing would no longer be valid. 
tadabhāvān na vidyante catvāry āryaphalāni ca |
phalābhāve phalasthā no na santi pratipannakāḥ ||3|| 
以是事無故 則無四道果
無有四果故 得向者亦無 
| de dag yod pa ma yin pas | | ’bras bu bźi yaṅ yod ma yin |
| ’bras bu med na ’bras gnas med | | źugs pa dag kyaṅ yod ma yin | 
“Since they would not exist, the four fruits would also not exist. If the fruits did not exist, there could be no abiding in the fruits. Experiencing them would also not exist. 
saṃgho nāsti na cet santi te ’ṣṭau puruṣapudgalāḥ |
abhāvāc cāryasatyānāṃ saddharmo ’pi na vidyate ||4|| 
若無八賢聖 則無有僧寶
以無四諦故 亦無有法寶 
| gal te skyes bu gaṅ zag brgyad | | de dag med na dge ’dun med |
| ’phags pa’i (6)bden rnams med pa’i phyir | | dam pa’i chos kyaṅ yod ma yin | 
“If those eight beings did not exist, the Community would not exist. Since there would be no ennobling truths, the sublime Dharma could also not exist. 
dharme cāsati saṃghe ca kathaṃ buddho bhaviṣyati |
evaṃ trīṇy api ratnāni bruvāṇaḥ pratibādhase ||5|| 
以無法僧寶 亦無有佛寶
如是說空者 是則破三寶 
| chos daṅ dge ’dun yod min na | | saṅs rgyas ji ltar yod par ’gyur |
| de skad stoṅ pa ñid smra na | | dkon mchog gsum la gnod pa ni | 
“If the Community and the Dharma did not exist, how could Buddha exist? When you talk of emptiness, the three Jewels are maligned. 
śūnyatāṃ phalasadbhāvam adharmaṃ dharmam eva ca |
sarvasaṃvyavahārāṃś ca laukikān pratibādhase ||6|| 
空法壞因果 亦壞於罪福
亦復悉毀壞 一切世俗法 
| byed ciṅ ’bras bu yod pa daṅ | | chos ma yin pa (7)chos ñid daṅ |
| ’jig rten pa yi tha sñad ni | | kun la’aṅ gnod pa byed pa yin | 
“The existence of actions and fruits, what is not Dharma and what is Dharma, the conventions of the world: all these too are maligned.” 
atra brūmaḥ śūnyatāyāṃ na tvaṃ vetsi prayojanam |
śūnyatāṃ śūnyatārthaṃ ca tata evaṃ vihanyase ||7|| 
汝今實不能 知空空因緣
及知於空義 是故自生惱 
| de la bśad pa khyod kyis ni | | stoṅ ñid dgos daṅ stoṅ ñid daṅ |
| stoṅ ñid don ni ma rtogs pas | | de phyir de ltar gnod pa yin | 
An explanation for that: since you do not understand the need for emptiness, emptiness, and the point of emptiness, therefore in that way you malign. 
dve satye samupāśritya buddhānāṃ dharmadeśanā |
lokasaṃvṛtisatyaṃ ca satyaṃ ca paramārthataḥ ||8|| 
諸佛依二諦 為眾生說法
一以世俗諦 二第一義諦 
| saṅs rgyas rnams kyis chos bstan pa | | (15a1)bden pa gñis la yaṅ dag brten |
| ’jig rten kun rdzob bden pa daṅ | | dam pa’i don gyi bden pa’o | 
The Dharma taught by Buddhas perfectly relies on two truths: the ambiguous truths of the world and the truths of the sublime meaning. 
ye ’nayor na vijānanti vibhāgaṃ satyayor dvayoḥ |
te tattvaṃ na vijānanti gambhīraṃ buddhaśāsane ||9|| 
若人不能知 分別於二諦
則於深佛法 不知真實義 
| gaṅ dag bden pa de gñis kyi | | rnam dbye rnam par mi śes pa |
| de dag saṅs rgyas bstan pa ni | | zab mo’i de ñid rnam mi śes | 
Those who do not understand the division into two truths, cannot understand the profound reality of the Buddha’s teaching. 
vyavahāram anāśritya paramārtho na deśyate |
paramārtham anāgamya nirvāṇaṃ nādhigamyate ||10|| 
若不依俗諦 不得第一義
不得第一義 則不得涅槃 
| (2)tha sñad la ni ma brten par | | dam pa’i don ni bstan mi nus |
| dam pa’i don ni ma rtogs par | | mya ṅan ’das pa thob mi ’gyur | 
Without relying on conventions, the sublime meaning cannot be taught. Without understanding the sublime meaning, one will not attain nirvana. 
vināśayati durdṛṣtā śūnyatā mandamedhasam |
sarpo yathā durgṛhīto vidyā vā duṣprasādhitā ||11|| 
不能正觀空 鈍根則自害
如不善咒術 不善捉毒蛇 
| stoṅ pa ñid la blta ñes na | | śes rab chuṅ rnams phuṅ bar ’gyur |
| ji ltar sprul la gzuṅ ñes daṅ | | rig (3)sṅags ñes par bsgrubs pa bźin | 
If their view of emptiness is wrong, those of little intelligence will be hurt. Like handling a snake in the wrong way, or casting a spell in the wrong way. 
ataś ca pratyudāvṛttaṃ cittaṃ deśayituṃ muneḥ |
dharmaṃ matvāsya dharmasya mandair duravagāhatām ||12|| 
世尊知是法 甚深微妙相
非鈍根所及 是故不欲說 
| de phyir źan pas chos ’di yi | | gtiṅ rtogs dka’ bar mkhyen gyur nas |
| thub pa’i thugs ni chos bstan las | | rab tu log par gyur pa yin | 
Therefore, knowing how difficult it is for the weak to understand the depths of this Dharma, the heart of the Muni strongly turned away from teaching the Dharma. 
śūnyatāyām adhilayaṃ yaṃ punaḥ kurute bhavān |
doṣaprasaṅgo nāsmākaṃ sa śūnye nopapadyate ||13|| 
汝謂我著空 而為我生過
汝今所說過 於空則無有 
| skyon du thal bar ’gyur ba ni | | stoṅ la ’thad pa ma yin pas |
| (4)khyod ni stoṅ ñid spoṅ byed pa | | gaṅ de ṅa la mi ’thad do | 
Since [those] erroneous consequences do not apply to emptiness, whatever rejections you make of emptiness do not apply to me. 
sarvaṃ ca yujyate tasya śūnyatā yasya yujyate |
sarvaṃ na yujyate tasya śūnyaṃ yasya na yujyate ||14|| 
以有空義故 一切法得成
若無空義者 一切則不成 
| gaṅ la stoṅ pa ñid ruṅ ba | | de la thams cad ruṅ bar ’gyur |
| gaṅ la stoṅ ñid mi ruṅ ba | | de la thams cad ruṅ mi ’gyur | 
Those for whom emptiness is possible, for them everything is possible. Those for whom emptiness is not possible, for them everything is not possible. 
sa tvaṃ doṣān ātmanīyān asmāsu paripātayan |
aśvam evābhirūḍhaḥ sann aśvam evāsi vismṛtaḥ ||15|| 
汝今自有過 而以迴向我
如人乘馬者 自忘於所乘 
| khyod ni raṅ gi skyon rnams ni | | ṅa la yoṅs su sgyur byed pa |
| rta la (5)mṅon par źon bźin du | | rta ñid brjed par gyur pa bźin | 
You are transferring your own mistakes onto me. This is like mounting a horse but forgetting about the horse itself. 
svabhāvād yadi bhāvānāṃ sadbhāvam anupaśyasi |
ahetupratyayān bhāvāṃs tvam evaṃ sati paśyasi ||16|| 
若汝見諸法 決定有性者
即為見諸法 無因亦無緣 
| gal te dṅos rnams raṅ bźin las | | yod par rjes su lta byed na |
| de lta yin na dṅos po rnams | | rgyu rkyen med par khyod lta’o | 
If you view all things as existing from their own nature, then you would view all things as not having causes and conditions. 
kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ caiva kartāraṃ karaṇaṃ kriyām |
utpādaṃ ca nirodhaṃ ca phalaṃ ca pratibādhase ||17|| 
即為破因果 作作者作法
亦復壞一切 萬物之生滅 
| ’bras bu daṅ ni rgyu ñid daṅ | | byed pa po daṅ byed daṅ (6)bya | | skye ba daṅ ni ’gag pa daṅ | | ’bras bu la yaṅ gnod pa byed | 
Cause and effect itself, agents, tools and acts, production and cessation, the effects too would be undermined. 
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaḥ śūnyatāṃ tāṃ pracakṣmahe |
sā prajñaptir upādāya pratipat saiva madhyamā ||18|| 
眾因緣生法 我說即是無
亦為是假名 亦是中道義 
| rten ciṅ ’brel bar ’byuṅ ba gaṅ | | de ni stoṅ pa ñid du bśad |
| de ni brten nas gdags pa ste | | de ñid dbu ma’i lam yin no | 
Whatever is contingently related, that is explained as emptiness. That is contingently configured; it is the central path. 
apratītya samutpanno dharmaḥ kaścin na vidyate |
yasmāt tasmād aśūnyo hi dharmaḥ kaścin na vidyate ||19|| 
未曾有一法 不從因緣生
是故一切法 無不是空者 
| gaṅ phyir rten ’byuṅ ma yin pa’i | | chos ’ga’ (7)yod pa ma yin pa |
| de phyir stoṅ pa ma yin pa’i | | chos ’ga’ yod pa ma yin no | 
Because there are no things at all, which are not contingently emergent, therefore, there are no things at all, which are not empty. 
yady aśūnyam idaṃ sarvam udayo nāsti na vyayaḥ |
caturṇām āryasatyānām abhāvas te prasajyate ||20|| 
若一切不空 則無有生滅
如是則無有 四聖諦之法 
| gal te ’di kun mi stoṅ na | | ’byuṅ ba med ciṅ ’jig pa med |
| ’phags pa’i bden pa bźi po rnams | | khyod la med par thal bar ’gyur | 
If all were not empty, nothing could come about or perish. It would follow for you that the four ennobling truths could not exist. 
apratītya samutpannaṃ kuto duḥkhaṃ bhaviṣyati |
anityam uktaṃ duḥkhaṃ hi tat svābhāvye na vidyate ||21|| 
苦不從緣生 云何當有苦
無常是苦義 定性無無常 
| rten ciṅ ’brel ’byuṅ ma yin na | | (15b1)sdug bsṅal yod par ga la ’gyur |
| mi rtag sdug bsṅal gsuṅs pa de | | raṅ bźin ñid la yod ma yin | 
If things were not contingently emergent, how could anguish exist? Impermanent things are taught to be anguish; in their very own nature they do not exist. 
svabhāvato vidyamānaṃ kiṃ punaḥ samudeṣyate |
tasmāt samudayo nāsti śūnyatāṃ pratibādhataḥ ||22|| 
若苦有定性 何故從集生
是故無有集 以破空義故 
| raṅ bźin las ni yod yin na | | ci źig kun tu ’byuṅ bar ’gyur |
| de phyir stoṅ ñid gnod byed la | | kun ’byuṅ yod pa ma yin no | 
If it did exist from its own nature, why would it have an origin? Therefore, for those who undermine emptiness, it can have no origin. 
na nirodhaḥ svabhāvena sato duḥkhasya vidyate |
svabhāvaparyavasthānān nirodhaṃ pratibādhase ||23|| 
苦若有定性 則不應有滅
汝著定性故 即破於滅諦 
| sdug bsṅal (2)raṅ bźin gyis yod na | | ’gog pa yod pa ma yin no |
| raṅ bźin gyis ni yoṅs gnas phyir | | ’gog la gnod pa byed pa yin | 
If anguish existed by its own nature, there could be no cessation. Because its own nature would be totally present, cessation too would be undermined. 
svābhāvye sati mārgasya bhāvanā nopapadyate |
athāsau bhāvyate mārgaḥ svābhāvyaṃ te na vidyate ||24|| 
苦若有定性 則無有修道
若道可修習 即無有定性 
| lam la raṅ bźin yod na ni | | sgom pa ’thad par mi ’gyur ro |
| ci ste lam de bsgom bya na | | khyod kyi raṅ bźin yod ma (3)yin | 
If the path existed by its own nature, cultivation would not be appropriate. If the path is to be cultivated, your own nature cannot exist. 
yadā duḥkhaṃ samudayo nirodhaś ca na vidyate |
mārgo duḥkhanirodhatvāt katamaḥ prāpayiṣyati ||25|| 
若無有苦諦 及無集滅諦
所可滅苦道 竟為何所至 
| gaṅ tshe sdug bsṅal kun ’byuṅ daṅ | | ’gog pa yod pa ma yin na | | lam gyi sdug bsṅal ’gog pa ni | | gaṅ źig thob par ’gyur par ’dod | 
When anguish, origins and cessation cannot exist, what ceasing of anguish could one seek to attain by the path? 
svabhāvenāparijñānaṃ yadi tasya punaḥ katham |
parijñānaṃ nanu kila svabhāvaḥ samavasthitaḥ ||26|| 
若苦定有性 先來所不見
於今云何見 其性不異故 
| gal te raṅ bźin ñid kyis ni | | yoṅs su śes pa ma yin na |
| de ni ji ltar yoṅs śes ’gyur | | (4)raṅ bźin gnas pa ma yin nam | 
If non-understanding existed by its very own nature, how could one ever understand? Doesn’t it abides by nature? 
prahāṇasākṣātkaraṇe bhāvanā caivam eva te |
parijñāvan na yujyante catvāry api phalāni ca ||27|| 
如見苦不然 斷集及證滅
修道及四果 是亦皆不然 
| de bźin du ni khyod ñid kyi | | spaṅ daṅ mṅon du bya ba daṅ |
| bsgom daṅ ’bras bu bźi dag kyaṅ | | yoṅs śes bźin du mi ruṅ ṅo | 
In the same way, your letting go, realizing, cultivating and the four fruits too are as impossible as understanding. 
svabhāvenānadhigataṃ yat phalaṃ tat punaḥ katham |
śakyaṃ samadhigantuṃ syāt svabhāvaṃ parigṛhṇataḥ ||28|| 
是四道果性 先來不可得
諸法性若定 今云何可得 
| raṅ bźin yoṅs su ’dzin pa yis | | ’bras bu raṅ bźin ñid kyis ni |
| thob pa min (5)pa gaṅ yin de | | ji ltar ’thob par nus par ’gyur | 
How can any fruits, which totally hold their own nature and by their own nature are unattained, be attained? 
phalābhāve phalasthā no na santi pratipannakāḥ |
saṃgho nāsti na cet santi te ’ṣṭau puruṣapudgalāḥ ||29|| 
若無有四果 則無得向者
以無八聖故 則無有僧寶 
| ’bras bu med na ’bras gnas med | | źugs pa dag kyaṅ yod ma yin |
| gal te skyes bu gaṅ zag brgyad | | de dag med na dge ’dun med | 
If the fruits did not exist, there could be no abiding in the fruits. Experiencing them would also not exist. If those eight beings did not exist, the Community would not exist. 
abhāvāc cāryasatyānāṃ saddharmo ’pi na vidyate |
dharme cāsati saṃghe ca kathaṃ buddho bhaviṣyati ||30|| 
無四聖諦故 亦無有法寶
無法寶僧寶 云何有佛寶 
| ’phags pa’i bden rnams med pa’i phyir | | dam pa’i (6)chos kyaṅ yod ma yin |
| chos daṅ dge ’dun yod min na | | saṅs rgyas ji ltar yod par ’gyur | 
Since there would be no ennobling truths, the sublime Dharma could also not exist. If the Community and the Dharma did not exist, how could Buddha exist? 
apratītyāpi bodhiṃ ca tava buddhaḥ prasajyate |
apratītyāpi buddhaṃ ca tava bodhiḥ prasajyate ||31|| 
汝說則不因 菩提而有佛
亦復不因佛 而有於菩提 
| khyod kyis saṅs rgyas byaṅ chub la | | ma brten par yaṅ thal bar ’gyur |
| khyod kyis byaṅ chub saṅs rgyas la | | ma brten par yaṅ thal bar ’gyur | 
It would also follow that your Buddha does not depend on awakening. It would also follow that your awakening does not depend on Buddha. 
yaś cābuddhaḥ svabhāvena sa bodhāya ghaṭann api |
na bodhisattvacaryāyāṃ bodhiṃ te ’dhigamiṣyati ||32|| 
雖復勤精進 修行菩提道
若先非佛性 不應得成佛 
| khyod (7)kyi raṅ bźin ñid kyis ni | | saṅs rgyas min pa gaṅ yin des |
| byaṅ chub spyod la byaṅ chub phyir | | brtsal kyaṅ byaṅ chub thob mi ’gyur | 
For you, someone who by his very nature is not Buddha could not attain awakening however much he strove in the practice of awakening for the sake of awakening. 
na ca dharmam adharmaṃ vā kaścij jātu kariṣyati |
kim aśūnyasya kartavyaṃ svabhāvaḥ kriyate na hi ||33|| 
若諸法不空 無作罪福者
不空何所作 以其性定故 
| ’ga’ yaṅ chos daṅ chos min pa | | nam yaṅ byed par mi ’gyur te |
| mi stoṅ pa la ci źig bya | | raṅ bźin la ni bya ba (16a1)med | 
No one would ever do what is Dharma and what is not Dharma. What can that which is not empty do? Inherent nature is inactive. 
vinā dharmam adharmaṃ ca phalaṃ hi tava vidyate |
dharmādharmanimittaṃ ca phalaṃ tava na vidyate ||34|| 
汝於罪福中 不生果報者
是則離罪福 而有諸果報 
| chos daṅ chos min med par yaṅ | | ’bras bu khyod la yod par ’gyur |
| chos daṅ chos min rgyus byuṅ ba’i | | ’bras bu khyod la yod ma yin | 
Even without Dharma and not-Dharma, you would have the fruits. You would not have the fruits which have arisen from the causes of Dharma and not-Dharma. 
dharmādharmanimittaṃ vā yadi te vidyate phalam |
dharmādharmasamutpannam aśūnyaṃ te kathaṃ phalam ||35|| 
若謂從罪福 而生果報者
果從罪福生 云何言不空 
| chos daṅ chos min rgyus byuṅ ba’i | | ’bras bu gal te khyod la (2)yod |
| chos daṅ chos min las byuṅ ba’i | | ’bras bu ci phyir stoṅ ma yin | 
If you have the fruits which have arisen from the causes of Dharma and not-Dharma, why are the fruits which have arisen from the Dharma and not-Dharma not empty? 
sarvasaṃvyvahārāṃś ca laukikān pratibādhase |
yat pratītyasamutpādaśūnyatāṃ pratibādhase ||36|| 
汝破一切法 諸因緣空義
則破於世俗 諸餘所有法 
| rten ciṅ ’brel bar ’byuṅ ba yi | | stoṅ pa ñid la gnod byed gaṅ |
| ’jig rten pa yi tha sñad ni | | kun la gnod pa byed pa yin | 
Whoever undermines emptiness which is contingent emergence also undermines all the conventions of the world. 
na kartavyaṃ bhavet kiṃcid anārabdhā bhavet kriyā |
kārakaḥ syād akurvāṇaḥ śūnyatāṃ pratibādhataḥ ||37|| 
若破於空義 即應無所作
無作而有作 不作名作者 
| stoṅ pa ñid la gnod (3)byed na | | bya ba ci yaṅ med ’gyur źiṅ |
| rtsom pa med pa bya bar ’gyur | | mi byed pa yaṅ byed por ’gyur | 
If one undermines emptiness, there would be no actions at all and actions without an author and agents who do not act. 
ajātam aniruddhaṃ ca kūṭaśthaṃ ca bhaviṣyati |
vicitrābhir avasthābhiḥ svabhāve rahitaṃ jagat ||38|| 
若有決定性 世間種種相
則不生不滅 常住而不壞 
| raṅ bźin yod na ’gro ba rnams | | ma skyes pa daṅ ma ’gags daṅ |
| ther zug tu ni gnas ’gyur źiṅ | | gnas skabs sna (4)tshogs bral bar ’gyur | 
If there were inherent nature, all beings would be unborn and unceasing, would be fixed in place forever, separated from the variety of situations. 
asaṃprāptasya ca prāptir duḥkhaparyantakarma ca |
sarvakleśaprahāṇaṃ ca yady aśūnyaṃ na vidyate ||39|| 
若無有空者 未得不應得
亦無斷煩惱 亦無苦盡事 
| gal te stoṅ pa yod min na | | ma thob thob par bya ba daṅ |
| sdug bsṅal mthar byed las daṅ ni | | ñon moṅs thams cad spoṅ ba’aṅ med | 
If [things] were not empty, there could be no attainment of what had not been attained, no ending of anguish and no letting go of all actions and afflictions. 
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ paśyatīdaṃ sa paśyati |
duḥkhaṃ samudayaṃ caiva nirodhaṃ mārgam eva ca ||40|| 
是故經中說 若見因緣法
則為能見佛 見苦集滅道 
| gaṅ gis rten ciṅ ’brel par ’byuṅ | | mthoṅ ba de ni sdug bsṅal (5)daṅ | | kun ’byuṅ daṅ ni ’gog pa daṅ | | lam ñid de dag mthoṅ ba yin | 
He who sees contingent emergence sees anguish and origins and cessation and the path itself. 
āryasatyaparīkṣā nāma caturviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀四諦品第二十四(四十偈) 
| ’phags pa’i bden pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu bźi pa’o || 
Investigation of the Ennobling Truths 
yadi śūnyam idaṃ sarvam udayo nāsti na vyayaḥ |
prahāṇād vā nirodhād vā kasya nirvāṇam iṣyate ||1|| 
若一切法空 無生無滅者
何斷何所滅 而稱為涅槃 
|| gal te ’di dag kun stoṅ na | | ’byuṅ ba med ciṅ ’jig pa med |
| gaṅ (6)źig spoṅ daṅ ’gags pa las | | mya ṅan ’da’ bar ’gyur bar ’dod | 
If everything were empty, there would be no arising and perishing. From the letting go of and ceasing of what could one assert nirvana(-ing)? 
yady aśūnyam idaṃ sarvam udayo nāsti na vyayaḥ |
prahāṇād vā nirodhād vā kasya nirvāṇam iṣyate ||2|| 
若諸法不空 則無生無滅
何斷何所滅 而稱為涅槃 
| gal te ’di kun mi stoṅ na | | ’byuṅ ba med ciṅ ’jig pa med |
| gaṅ źig spoṅ daṅ ’gags pa las | | mya ṅan ’da’ bar ’gyur bar ’dod | 
If everything were not empty, there would be no arising and perishing. From the letting go of and ceasing of what could one assert nirvana(-ing)? 
aprahīṇam asaṃprāptam anucchinnam aśāśvatam |
aniruddham anutpannam etan nirvāṇam ucyate ||3|| 
無得亦無至 不斷亦不常
不生亦不滅 是說名涅槃 
| spaṅs pa med pa thob med pa | (7)chad pa med pa rtag med pa |
| ’gag pa med pa skye med pa | | de ni mya ṅan ’das par brjod | 
No letting go, no attainment, no annihilation, no permanence, no cessation, no birth: that is spoken of as nirvana. 
bhāvas tāvan na nirvāṇaṃ jarāmaraṇalakṣaṇam |
prasajyetāsti bhāvo hi na jarāmaraṇaṃ vinā ||4|| 
涅槃不名有 有則老死相
終無有有法 離於老死相 
| re źig mya ṅan ’das dṅos min | | rga śi’i mtshan ñid thal bar ’gyur |
| rga daṅ ’chi ba med pa yi | | dṅos po yod pa ma yin no | 
Nirvana is not a thing. Then it would follow that it would have the characteristics of aging and death. There does not exist any thing that is without aging and death. 
bhāvaś ca yadi nirvāṇaṃ nirvāṇaṃ saṃskṛtaṃ bhavet |
nāsaṃskṛto hi vidyate bhāvaḥ kva cana kaś cana ||5|| 
若涅槃是有 涅槃即有為
終無有一法 而是無為者 
| gal te mya ṅan ’das (16b1)dṅos na | | mya ṅan ’das pa ’dus byas ’gyur |
| dṅos po ’dus byas ma yin pa | | ’ga’ yaṅ gaṅ na yod ma yin | 
If nirvana were a thing, nirvana would be a conditioned phenomenon. There does not exist any thing anywhere that is not a conditioned phenomenon. 
bhāvaś ca yadi nirvāṇam anupādāya tat katham |
nirvāṇaṃ nānupādāya kaścid bhāvo hi vidyate ||6|| 
若涅槃是有 云何名無受
無有不從受 而名為有法 
| gal te mya ṅan ’das dṅos na | | ji ltar myaṅ ’das de brten min |
| dṅos po brten nas ma yin pa | | ’ga’ yaṅ (2)yod pa ma yin no | 
If nirvana were a thing, how would nirvana not be dependent? There does not exists any thing at all that is not dependent. 
yadi bhāvo na nirvāṇam abhāvaḥ kiṃ bhaviṣyati |
nirvāṇaṃ yatra bhāvo na nābhāvas tatra vidyate ||7|| 
有尚非涅槃 何況於無耶
涅槃無有有 何處當有無 
| gal te mya ṅan ’das dṅos min | | dṅos med ji ltar ruṅ bar ’gyur |
| gaṅ la mya ṅan ’das dṅos min | | de la dṅos med yod ma yin | 
If nirvana were not a thing, how could it possibly be nothing? The one for whom nirvana is not a thing, for him it is not nothing. 
yady abhāvaś ca nirvāṇam anupādāya tat katham |
nirvāṇaṃ na hy abhāvo ’sti yo ’nupādāya vidyate ||8|| 
若無是涅槃 云何名不受
未曾有不受 而名為無法 
| gal te mya ṅan ’das dṅos min | | ji ltar myaṅ ’das de brten min |
| (3)gaṅ źig brten nas ma yin pa’i | | dṅos med yod pa ma yin no | 
If nirvana were nothing, how could nirvana possibly be not dependent? There does not exist any nothing which is not dependent. 
ya ājavaṃjavībhāva upādāya pratītya vā |
so ’pratītyānupādāya nirvāṇam upadiśyate ||9|| 
受諸因緣故 輪轉生死中
不受諸因緣 是名為涅槃 
| ’oṅ ba daṅ ni ’gro ba’i dṅos | | brten tam rgyur byas gaṅ yin pa |
| de ni brten min rgyur byas min | | mya ṅan ’das pa yin par bstan | 
Whatever things come and go are dependent or caused. Not being dependent and not being caused is taught to be Nirvana. 
prahāṇaṃ cābravīc chāstā bhavasya vibhavasya ca |
tasmān na bhāvo nābhāvo nirvāṇam iti yujyate ||10|| 
如佛經中說 斷有斷非有
是故知涅槃 非有亦非無 
| ’byuṅ ba daṅ ni ’jig pa dag | (4)spaṅ bar ston pas bka’ stsal to |
| de phyir mya ṅan ’das par ni | | dṅos min dṅos med min par rigs | 
The teacher taught [it] to be the letting go of arising and perishing. Therefore, it is correct that nirvana is not a thing or nothing. 
bhaved abhāvo bhāvaś ca nirvāṇam ubhayaṃ yadi |
bhaved abhāvo bhāvaś ca mokṣas tac ca na yujyate ||11|| 
若謂於有無 合為涅槃者
有無即解脫 是事則不然 
| gal te mya ṅan ’das pa ni | | dṅos daṅ dṅos med gñis yin na |
| dṅos daṅ dṅos po med pa dag | thal bar ’gyur na de mi rigs | 
If nirvana were both a thing and nothing, it would follow that it would be a thing and nothing. That is incorrect. 
bhaved abhāvo bhāvaś ca nirvāṇam ubhayaṃ yadi |
nānupādāya nirvāṇam upādāyobhayaṃ hi tat ||12|| 
若謂於有無 合為涅槃者
涅槃非無受 是二從受生 
| (5)gal te mya ṅan ’das pa ni | | dṅos daṅ dṅos med gñis yin na |
| mya ṅan ’das pa ma brten min | | de gñis brten nas yin phyir ro | 
If nirvana were both a thing and nothing, nirvana would not be not-dependent, because it would depend on those two. 
bhaved abhāvo bhāvaś ca nirvāṇam ubhayaṃ katham |
asaṃskṛtaṃ hi nirvāṇaṃ bhāvābhāvau ca saṃskṛtau ||13|| 
有無共合成 云何名涅槃
涅槃名無為 有無是有為 
| ji ltar mya ṅan ’das pa ni | | dṅos daṅ dṅos med gñis yin te |
| mya ṅan ’das pa ’dus ma byas | | (6)dṅos daṅ dṅos med ’dus byas yin | 
How could nirvana be both a thing and nothing? Nirvana is unconditioned; things and nothings are conditioned. 
bhaved abhāvo bhāvaś ca nirvāṇa ubhayaṃ katham |
tayor abhāvo hy ekatra prakāśatamasor iva ||14|| 
有無二事共 云何是涅槃
是二不同處 如明暗不俱 
| ji ltar mya ṅan ’das pa la | | dṅos daṅ dṅos med gñis yod de |
| de gñis gcig la yod min te | | snaṅ ba daṅ ni mun pa bźin | 
How could nirvana exist as both a thing and nothing? Those two do not exist as one. They are like light and dark. 
naivābhāvo naiva bhāvo nirvāṇam iti yā ’ñjanā |
abhāve caiva bhāve ca sā siddhe sati sidhyati ||15|| 
若非有非無 名之為涅槃
此非有非無 以何而分別 
| dṅos min dṅos po med min pa | | mya ṅan ’das par gaṅ ston pa |
| (7)dṅos po med daṅ dṅos po dag | grub na de ni grub par ’gyur | 
The presentation of neither a thing nor nothing as nirvana will be established [only] if things and nothings are established. 
naivābhāvo naiva bhāvo nirvāṇaṃ yadi vidyate |
naivābhāvo naiva bhāva iti kena tad ajyate ||16|| 
分別非有無 如是名涅槃
若有無成者 非有非無成 
| gal te mya ṅan ’das pa ni | | dṅos min dṅos po med min na |
| dṅos min dṅos po med min źes | | gaṅ źig gis ni de mṅon byed | 
If nirvana is neither a thing nor nothing, by who could “neither a thing nor nothing” be perceived? 
paraṃ nirodhād bhagavān bhavatīty eva nājyate |
na bhavaty ubhayaṃ ceti nobhayaṃ ceti nājyate ||17|| 
如來滅度後 不言有與無
亦不言有無 非有及非無 
| bcom ldan mya ṅan ’das gyur nas | | yod par mi mṅon (17a1)de bźin du |
| med do źe’am gñis ka daṅ | | gñis min źes kyaṅ mi mṅon no | 
After the Bhagavan has entered nirvana, one cannot perceive [him? it?] as “existing,” likewise as “not existing,” nor can one percieve [him? it?] as “both” or “neither”. 
tiṣṭhamāno ’pi bhagavān bhavatīty eva nājyate |
na bhavaty ubhayaṃ ceti nobhayaṃ ceti nājyate ||18|| 
如來現在時 不言有與無
亦不言有無 非有及非無 
| bcom ldan bźugs par gyur na yaṅ | | yod par mi mṅon de bźin du |
| med do źe’am gñis ka daṅ | | gñis min źes kyaṅ mi mṅon no | 
Even when the Bhagavan is alive, one cannot perceive [him? it?] as “existing,” likewise as “not existing,” nor can one percieve [him? it?] as “both” or “neither”. 
na saṃsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṃcid asti viśeṣaṇam |
na nirvāṇasya saṃsārāt kiṃcid asti viśeṣaṇam ||19|| 
涅槃與世間 無有少分別
世間與涅槃 亦無少分別 
| ’khor ba (2)mya ṅan ’das pa las | | khyad par cuṅ zad yod ma yin |
| mya ṅan ’das pa ’khor ba las | | khyad par cuṅ zad yod ma yin | 
Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara. 
nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṃsaraṇasya ca |
na tayor antaraṃ kiṃcit susūkṣmam api vidyate ||20|| 
涅槃之實際 及與世間際
如是二際者 無毫釐差別 
| mya ṅan ’das mtha’ gaṅ yin pa | | de ni ’khor ba’i mtha’ yin te |
| de gñis khyad par cuṅ zad ni | | śin tu phra ba’aṅ yod ma yin | 
Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two. 
paraṃ nirodhād antādyāḥ śāśvatādyāś ca dṛṣṭayaḥ |
nirvāṇam aparāntaṃ ca pūrvāntaṃ ca samāśritāḥ ||21|| 
滅後有無等 有邊等常等
諸見依涅槃 未來過去世 
| gaṅ (3)’das phan chad mtha’ sogs daṅ | | rtag la sogs par lta ba dag | mya ṅan ’das daṅ phyi mtha’ daṅ | | sṅon gyi mtha’ la brten pa yin | 
Views about who passes beyond, ends etc. and permanence etc. are contingent upon nirvana and later ends and former ends. 
śūnyeṣu sarvadharmeṣu kim anantaṃ kim antavat |
kim anantam antavac ca nānantaṃ nāntavac ca kim ||22|| 
一切法空故 何有邊無邊
亦邊亦無邊 非有非無邊 
| dṅos po thams cad stoṅ pa la | | mtha’ yod ci źig mtha’ med ci |
| mtha’ daṅ mtha’ med (4)ci źig yin | | mtha’ daṅ mtha’ med min pa ci | 
In the emptiness of all things what ends are there? What non-ends are there? What ends and non-ends are there? What of neither are there? 
kiṃ tad eva kim anyat kiṃ śāśvataṃ kim aśāśvatam |
aśāśvataṃ śāśvataṃ ca kiṃ vā nobhayam apy atha ||23|| 
何者為一異 何有常無常
亦常亦無常 非常非無常 
| de ñid ci źig gźan ci yin | | rtag pa ci źig mi rtag ci |
| rtag daṅ mi rtag gñis ka ci | | gñis ka min pa ci źig yin | 
Is there this? Is there the other? Is there permanence? Is there impermanence? Is there both permanence and impermanence? Is there neither? 
sarvopalambhopaśamaḥ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivaḥ |
na kva cit kasyacit kaścid dharmo buddhena deśitaḥ ||24|| 
諸法不可得 滅一切戲論
無人亦無處 佛亦無所說 
| dmigs pa thams cad ñer źi źiṅ | | spros pa ñer źi (5)źi ba ste |
| saṅs rgyas kyis ni gaṅ du yaṅ | | su la’aṅ chos ’ga’ ma bstan to | 
Totally pacifying all referents and totally pacifying fixations is peace. The Buddha nowhere taught any dharma to anyone. 
nirvāṇaparīkṣā nāma pañcaviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀涅槃品第二十五(二十四偈) 
| mya ṅan las ’das pa brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu lṅa pa’o || 
Investigation of Nirvana 
punarbhavāya saṃskārān avidyānivṛtas tridhā |
abhisaṃskurute yāṃs tair gatiṃ gacchati karmabhiḥ ||1|| 
眾生癡所覆 為後起三行
以起是行故 隨行墮六趣 
|| ma rig bsgribs pas yaṅ srid phyir | | ’du byed rnam pa gsum po dag |
|(6)mṅon par ’du byed gaṅ yin pa’i | | las de dag gis ’gro bar ’gro | 
In order to become again, those obscured by ignorance are moved into destinies by actions which are impelled [by] the three kinds of formative impulses. 
vijñānaṃ saṃniviśate saṃskārapratyayaṃ gatau |
saṃniviṣṭe ’tha vijñāne nāmarūpaṃ niṣicyate ||2|| 
以諸行因緣 識受六道身
以有識著故 增長於名色 
| ’du byed rkyen can rnam par śes | | ’gro ba rnams su ’jug par ’gyur |
| rnam par śes pa źugs gyur na | | miṅ daṅ gzugs ni chags par ’gyur | 
Consciousness conditioned by formative impulses enters into destinies. When consciousness has entered, name and form develop. 
niṣikte nāmarūpe tu ṣaḍāyatanasaṃbhavaḥ |
ṣaḍāyatanam āgamya saṃsparśaḥ saṃpravartate ||3|| 
名色增長故 因而生六入
情塵識和合 而生於六觸 
| miṅ daṅ gzugs (7)ni chags gyur na | | skye mched drug ni ’byuṅ bar ’gyur |
| skye mched drug la brten nas ni | | reg pa yaṅ dag ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | 
When name and form develop, the six senses emerge. In dependence upon the six senses, impact actually occurs. 
cakṣuḥ pratītya rūpaṃ ca samanvāhāram eva ca |
nāmarūpaṃ pratītyaivaṃ vijñānaṃ saṃpravartate ||4|| 
 
| miṅ daṅ gzugs daṅ dran byed la | | brten nas skye ba kho na ste |
| de ltar miṅ daṅ gzugs brten nas | | rnam par (17b1)śes pa skye bar ’gyur | 
Just as [it] only arises in dependence on the eye, [visual] form and attention, so consciousness arises in dependence on name and form. 
saṃnipātas trayāṇāṃ yo rūpavijñānacakṣuṣām |
sparśaḥ sa tasmāt sparśāc ca vedanā saṃpravartate ||5|| 
因於六觸故 即生於三受
以因三受故 而生於渴愛 
| mig daṅ gzugs daṅ rnam par śes | | gsum po ’dus pa gaṅ yin pa |
| de ni reg pa’o reg de las | | tshor ba kun tu ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | 
The gathering of the three: eye and [visual] form and consciousness, that is “impact.” From impact feeling totally arises. 
vedanāpratyayā tṛṣṇā vedanārthaṃ hi tṛṣyate |
tṛṣyamāṇa upādānam upādatte caturvidham ||6|| 
 
| tshor ba’i rkyen gyis sred pa ste | | tshor ba’i don du sred par ’gyur |
| sred (2)par gyur na ñe bar len | | rnam pa bźi po ñer len ’gyur | 
Due to the condition of feeling, there is craving; one craves for what is felt. When one craves, one clings to the four aspects of clinging [sense objects, views, morals and rules, and views of self]. 
upādāne sati bhava upādātuḥ pravartate |
syād dhi yady anupādāno mucyeta na bhaved bhavaḥ ||7|| 
因愛有四取 因取故有有
若取者不取 則解脫無有 
| ñer len yod na len pa po’i | | srid pa rab tu ’byuṅ bar ’gyur |
| gal te ñe bar len med na | | grol bar ’gyur te srid mi ’gyur | 
When there is clinging, the becoming of the clinger fully arises. When there is no clinging, one is freed; there is no [more] becoming. 
pañca skandhāḥ sa ca bhavo bhavāj jātiḥ pravartate |
jarāmaraṇaduḥkhādi śokāḥ saparidevanāḥ ||8|| 
從有而有生 從生有老死
從老死故有 憂悲諸苦惱 
| srid pa de yaṅ phuṅ po lṅa | | srid pa las ni skye (3)bar ’gyur |
| rga śi daṅ ni mya ṅan daṅ | | smre sṅags ’don bcas sdug bsṅal daṅ | 
Becoming is the five aggregates; from becoming one is born. Aging, death, torment, lamentation, pain, 
daurmanasyam upāyāsā jāter etat pravartate |
kevalasyaivam etasya duḥkhaskandhasya saṃbhavaḥ ||9|| 
如是等諸事 皆從生而有
但以是因緣 而集大苦陰 
| yid mi bde daṅ ’khrug pa rnams | de dag skye las rab tu ’byuṅ |
| de ltar sdug bsṅal phuṅ po ni | | ’ba’ źig pa ’di ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | 
mental unhappiness, anxiety: these vividly emerge from birth. Likewise, the entire mass of anguish emerges. 
saṃsāramūlaṃ saṃskārān avidvān saṃskaroty ataḥ |
avidvān kārakas tasmān na vidvāṃs tattvadarśanāt ||10|| 
是謂為生死 諸行之根本
無明者所造 智者所不為 
| ’khor ba’i (4)rtsa ba ’du byed de | | de phyir mkhas rnams ’du mi byed |
| de phyir mi mkhas byed po yin | | mkhas min de ñid mthoṅ phyir ro | 
The root of life is formative impulses. Therefore, the wise do not form impulses. Therefore, the unwise are formers, but not the wise since they see reality. 
avidyāyāṃ niruddhāyāṃ saṃskārāṇām asaṃbhavaḥ |
avidyāyā nirodhas tu jñānasyāsyaiva bhāvanāt ||11|| 
 
| ma rig ’gags par gyur na ni | | ’du byed rnams kyaṅ ’byuṅ mi ’gyur |
| ma rig ’gag par ’gyur ba ni | | śes (5)pas de ñid bsgoms pas so | 
When ignorance stops, formative impulses too do not occur. The stopping of ignorance [comes] through practising that with understanding. 
tasya tasya nirodhena tat tan nābhipravartate |
duḥkhaskandhaḥ kevalo ’yam evaṃ samyag nirudhyate ||12|| 
以是事滅故 是事則不生
但是苦陰聚 如是而正滅 
| de daṅ de ni ’gags gyur pas | | de daṅ de ni mṅon mi ’byuṅ |
| sdug bsṅal phuṅ po ’ba’ źig pa | | de ni de ltar yaṅ dag ’gag | 
By the stopping of the former, the latter will clearly not occur. The entire mass of anguish will likewise completely stop. 
dvādasāṅgabhāvaparīkṣā nāma ṣaḍviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ || 
中論觀十二因緣品第二十六(九偈) 
| srid pa’i yan lag bcu gñis brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu drug (6)pa’o || 
Analysis of the Twelve Links of Becoming 
[abhūm atītam adhvānaṃ nābhūvam iti dṛṣṭayaḥ |]2
yās tāḥ śāśvatalokādyāḥ pūrvāntaṃ samupāśritāḥ ||1|| 
我於過去世 為有為是無
世間常等見 皆依過去世 
|| ’das dus byuṅ ma byuṅ źes daṅ | | ’jig rten rtag pa la sogs par |
| lta ba gaṅ yin de dag ni | | mṅon gyi mtha’ la brten pa yin | 
Those views such as “I occurred or did not occur in the past,” the world is permanent, are dependent on the extreme of before. 
dṛṣṭayo na bhaviṣyāmi kim anyo ’nāgate ’dhvani |
bhaviṣyāmīti cāntādyā aparāntaṃ samāśritāḥ ||2|| 
我於未來世 為作為不作
有邊等諸見 皆依未來世 
| ma ’oṅs dus gźan ’byuṅ ’gyur daṅ | | mi ’byuṅ ’jig rten mtha’ sogs par |
| lta (7)ba gaṅ yin de dag ni | | phyi ma’i mtha’ la brten pa yin | 
Those views such as I will occur or not occur at another time in the future, the world has an end, are dependent on the extreme of Later. 
abhūm atītam adhvānam ity etan nopapadyate |
yo hi janmasu pūrveṣu sa eva na bhavaty ayam ||3|| 
過去世有我 是事不可得
過去世中我 不作今世我 
| ’das pa’i dus na byuṅ gyur źes | | bya ba de ni mi ’thad do |
| sṅon tshe rnams su gaṅ byuṅ ba | | de ñid ’di ni ma yin no | 
It is incorrect to say: “I occurred at a time in the past.” Whatever occurred before, that is not this. 
sa evātmeti tu bhaved upādānaṃ viśiṣyate |
upādānavinirmukta ātmā te katamaḥ punaḥ ||4|| 
若謂我即是 而身有異相
若當離於身 何處別有我 
| de ñid bdag tu ’gyur sñam na | | ñe bar len pa tha dad ’gyur |
| ñe bar lan (18a1)pa ma gtogs par | | khyod kyi bdag ni gaṅ źig yin | 
If you think that that became me, then that-which-is-clung-to would be something else. What is your self apart from that-which-is-clung-to? 
upādānavinirmukto nāsty ātmeti kṛte sati |
syād upādānam evātmā nāsti cātmeti vaḥ punaḥ ||5|| 
離有無身我 是事為已成
若謂身即我 若都無有我 
| ñe bar len pa ma gtogs pa’i | | bdag yod ma yin byas pa’i tshe |
| ñe bar len ñid bdag yin na | | khyod kyi bdag ni med pa yin | 
Were you [to say] that there exists no self apart from that-which-is-clung-to, if the very that-which-is-clung-to were the self, your self would be non-existent. 
na copādānam evātmā vyeti tat samudeti ca |
kathaṃ hi nāmopādānam upādātā bhaviṣyati ||6|| 
但身不為我 身相生滅故
云何當以受 而作於受者 
| ñe bar len ñid bdag ma yin | | de ’byuṅ ba daṅ ’jig (2)pa yin |
| ñe bar blaṅ ba ji lta bur | | ñe bar len po yin par ’gyur | 
The very that-which-is-clung-to is not the self: it arises and passes away. How can that-which-has-been-clung-to be the one that clings? 
anyaḥ punar upādānād ātmā naivopapadyate |
gṛhyeta hy anupādāno yady anyo na ca gṛhyate ||7|| 
若離身有我 是事則不然
無受而有我 而實不可得 
| bdag ni ñe bar len pa las | | gźan du ’thad pa ñid ma yin |
| gal te gźan na len med par | | gzuṅ yod rigs na gzuṅ du med | 
It is not correct for the self to be other than that-which-is-clung-to. If it were other, with nothing to cling to, then something [i.e. the self] fit to be apprehended would not be apprehended. 
evaṃ nānya upādānān na copādānam eva saḥ |
ātmā nāsty anupādāno nāpi nāsty eṣa niścayaḥ ||8|| 
今我不離受 亦不即是受
非無受非無 此即決定義 
| de ltar len las gźan ma yin | | de ni ñer len ñid (3)kyaṅ min |
| bdag ni ñe bar len med min | | med pa ñid du’aṅ de ma ṅes | 
In that way, it is not other than that-which-is-clung-to nor is it that-which-is-clung-to. The self is not not that-which-is-clung-to, nor can it be ascertained as nothing. 
nābhūm atītam adhvānam ity etan nopapadyate |
yo hi janmasu pūrveṣu tato ’nyo na bhavaty ayam ||9|| 
過去我不作 是事則不然
過去世中我 異今亦不然 
| ’das pa’i dus na ma byuṅ źes | | bya ba de yaṅ mi ’thad do |
| sṅon tshe rnams su gaṅ byuṅ ba | | de las ’di gźan ma yin no | 
It is incorrect to say: “I did not occur at a time in the past.” Whatever occurred before, this is not other than that. 
yadi hy ayaṃ bhaved anyaḥ pratyākhyāyāpi taṃ bhavet |
tathaiva ca sa saṃtiṣṭhet tatra jāyeta cāmṛtaḥ ||10|| 
若謂有異者 離彼應有今
我住過去世 而今我自生 
| gal te ’di ni gźan gyur na | | de med par yaṅ ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | (4)de bźin de ni gnas ’gyur źiṅ | | der ma śi bar skye bar ’gyur | 
If this were other, it would arise even without that. Likewise, that could remain and be born without dying in that [former life]. 
[ucchedaḥ karmaṇāṃ nāśaḥ kṛtam anyena karma ca |
pratisaṃvedayed anya evam ādi prasajyate ||11||]3  
如是則斷滅 失於業果報
彼作而此受 有如是等過 
| chad daṅ las rnams chud za daṅ | | gźan gyis byas pa’i las rnams ni |
| gźan gyis so sor myoṅ ba daṅ | | de la sogs par thal bar ’gyur | 
Cut off and actions wasted, acts committed by others would be experienced by someone else. Such would be the consequences. 
nāpy abhūtvā samudbhūto doṣo hy atra prasajyate |
kṛtako vā bhaved ātmā saṃbhūto vāpy ahetukaḥ ||12|| 
先無而今有 此中亦有過
我則是作法 亦為是無因 
| ma byuṅ ba las ’byuṅ min te | | ’di la skyon du thal bar (5)’gyur |
| bdag ni byas par ’gyur ba daṅ | | ’byuṅ ba’am rgyu med can du ’gyur | 
There is no occurence from what has not occured. In that case faults would follow: the self would be something made or even though it occured it would be uncaused. 
evaṃ dṛṣtir atīte yā nābhūm aham abhūm aham |
ubhayaṃ nobhayaṃ ceti naiṣā samupapadyate ||13|| 
如過去世中 有我無我見
若共若不共 是事皆不然 
| de ltar bdag byuṅ bdag ma byuṅ | | gñis ka gñis ka ma yin par |
| ’das la lta ba gaṅ yin pa | | de dag ’thad pa ma yin no | 
Therefore, “the self occured, did not occur, both or neither:” all those views of the past are invalid. 
adhvany anāgate kiṃ nu bhaviṣyāmīti darśanam |
na bhaviṣyāmi cety etad atītenādhvanā samam ||14|| 
我於未來世 為作為不作
如是之見者 皆同過去世 
| ma ’oṅs dus gźan ’byuṅ ’gyur daṅ | | ’byuṅ bar (6)mi ’gyur źes bya bar |
| lta ba gaṅ yin de dag ni | | ’das pa’i dus daṅ mtshuṅs pa yin | 
“I will occur at another time in the future,” “I will not occur:” all those views are similar to [those of] the past. 
sa devaḥ sa manuṣyaś ced evaṃ bhavati śāśvatam |
anutpannaś ca devaḥ syāj jāyate na hi śāśvatam ||15|| 
若天即是人 則墮於常邊
天則為無生 常法不生故 
| gal te lha de mi de na | | de lta na ni rtag par ’gyur |
| lha ni ma skyes ñid ’gyur te | | rtag la skye ba med phyir ro | 
If the divine were human, then there would be something permanent. The divine is utterly unborn, because there is no birth in permanence. 
devād anyo manuṣyaś ced aśāśvatam ato bhavet |
devād anyo manuṣyaś cet saṃtatir nopapadyate ||16|| 
若天異於人 是即為無常
若天異人者 是則無相續 
| gal te lha las mi gźan na | | de lta na ni mi rtag ’gyur |
| gal te (7)lha mi gźan yin na | | rgyud ni ’thad par mi ’gyur ro | 
If the human were other than the divine, then there would be no permanence. If the divine and the human were different, there could be no continuity [between them]. 
divyo yady ekadeśaḥ syād ekadeśaś ca mānuṣaḥ |
aśāśvataṃ śāśvataṃ ca bhavet tac ca na yujyate ||17|| 
若半天半人 則墮於二邊
常及於無常 是事則不然 
| gal te phyogs gcig lha yin la | | phyogs gcig mi ni yin gyur na |
| rtag daṅ mi rtag ’gyur ba yin | | de yaṅ rigs pa ma yin no | 
If one part were divine and one part were human, there would be both permanence and no permanence. But that is not reasonable. 
aśāśvataṃ śāśvataṃ ca prasiddham ubhayaṃ yadi |
siddhe na śāśvataṃ kāmaṃ naivāśāśvatam ity api ||18|| 
若常及無常 是二俱成者
如是則應成 非常非無常 
| gal te rtag daṅ mi rtag pa | | gñis ga grub par gyur na ni |
| rtag pa ma yin mi rtag min | | (18b1)’grub par ’gyur bar ’dod la rag | 
If both permanence and impermanence were established, you would have to assert non-permanence and non-impermance as established. 
kutaścid āgataḥ kaścit kiṃcid gacchet punaḥ kva cit |
yadi tasmād anādis tu saṃsāraḥ syān na cāsti saḥ ||19|| 
法若定有來 及定有去者
生死則無始 而實無此事 
| gal te gaṅ źig gaṅ nas gar | | ’oṅ źiṅ goṅ du’aṅ ’gro ’gyur na |
| de phyir ’khor ba thog med par | | ’gyur na de ni yod ma yin | 
If something came from somewhere and went somewhere, then samsara would be without beginning. That is not the case. 
nāsti cec chāśvataḥ kaścit ko bhaviṣyaty aśāśvataḥ |
śāśvato ’śāśvataś cāpi dvābhyām ābhyāṃ tiraskṛtaḥ ||20|| 
今若無有常 云何有無常
亦常亦無常 非常非無常 
| gal te rtag pa ’ga’ med na | | mi rtag gaṅ źig yin par ’gyur |
| rtag pa daṅ ni mi rtag daṅ | | de gñis (2)bsal bar gyur pa’o | 
If there were nothing permanent at all, what thing could be impermanent, permanent and impermanent, free of both? 
antavān yadi lokaḥ syāt paralokaḥ kathaṃ bhavet |
athāpy anantavāl lokaḥ paralokaḥ kathaṃ bhavet ||21|| 
若世間有邊 云何有後世
若世間無邊 云何有後世 
| gal te ’jig rten mtha’ yod na | | ’jig rten pha rol ji ltar ’gyur |
| gal te ’jig rten mtha’ med na | | ’jig rten pha rol ji ltar ’gyur | 
If this world had an end, how would the next world come to be? If this world had no end, how would the next world come to be? 
skandhānām eṣa saṃtāno yasmād dīpārciṣām iva |
tasmān nānantavattvaṃ ca nāntavattvaṃ ca yujyate ||22|| 
五陰常相續 猶如燈火炎
以是故世間 不應邊無邊 
| gaṅ phyir phuṅ po rnams kyi rgyun | | ’di ni mar me’i ’od daṅ mtshuṅs |
| de phyir mtha’ yod ñid daṅ ni | | (3)mtha’ med ñid kyaṅ mi rigs so | 
Because the continuity of the aggregates is similar to the light of a lamp, therefore the very existence or non-existence of an end is unreasonable. 
pūrve yadi ca bhajyerann utpadyeran na cāpy amī |
skandhāḥ skandhān pratītyemān atha loko ’ntavān bhavet ||23|| 
若先五陰壞 不因是五陰
更生後五陰 世間則有邊 
| gal te sṅa ma ’jig ’gyur źiṅ | | phuṅ po ’di la brten byas nas |
| phuṅ po de ni mi ’byuṅ na | | des na ’jig rten mtha’ yod ’gyur | 
If the former perished and that [future] aggregate did not arise in dependence upon this aggregate, then this world would have an end. 
pūrve yadi na bhajyerann utpadyeran na cāpy amī |
skandhāḥ skandhān pratītyemāṃl loko ’nanto bhaved atha ||24|| 
若先陰不壞 亦不因是陰
而生後五陰 世間則無邊 
| gal te sṅa ma mi ’jig ciṅ | | phuṅ po ’di la brten byas nas |
| phuṅ po de ni mi ’byuṅ na | | (4)des na ’jig rten mtha’ med ’gyur | 
If the former did not perish and that [future] aggregate did not arise in dependence upon this aggregate, then this world would not have an end. 
antavān ekadeśaś ced ekadeśas tv anantavān |
syād antavān anantaś ca lokas tac ca na yujyate ||25|| 
真法及說者 聽者難得故
如是則生死 非有邊無邊 
| gal te phyogs gcig mtha’ yod la | | phyogs gcig mtha’ ni med ’gyur na |
| ’jig rten mtha’ yod mtha’ med ’gyur | | de yaṅ rigs pa ma yin no | 
If one part had an end and one part did not have an end, the world would be with and without an end. That too is unreasonable. 
kathaṃ tāvad upādātur ekadeśo vinaṅkṣyate |
na naṅkṣyate caikadeśa evaṃ caitan na yujyate ||26|| 
若世半有邊 世間半無邊
是則亦有邊 亦無邊不然 
| ji lta bur na ñer len po’i | | phyogs gcig rnam par ’jig (5)’gyur la |
| phyogs gcig rnam par ’jig mi ’gyur | | de ltar de ni mi rigs so | 
How can one part of the one-who-clings perish while one part does not perish? Likewise, that is unreasonable. 
upādānaikadeśaś ca kathaṃ nāma vinaṅkṣyate |
na naṅkṣyate caikadeśo naitad apy upapadyate ||27|| 
彼受五陰者 云何一分破
一分而不破 是事則不然 
| ji lta bur na ñer blaṅ ba | | phyogs gcig rnam par ’jig ’gyur la |
| phyogs gcig rnam par ’jig mi ’gyur | | de ltar de yaṅ mi rigs so | 
How can one part of that-which-is-clung-to perish while one part does not perish? Likewise, that is unreasonable. 
antavac cāpy anantaṃ ca prasiddham ubhayaṃ yadi |
siddhe naivāntavat kāmaṃ naivānantavad ity api ||28|| 
受亦復如是 云何一分破
一分而不破 是事亦不然 
| gal te mtha’ (6)yod mtha’ med pa | | gñis ka grub par gyur na ni |
| mtha’ yod ma yin mtha’ med min | | ’grub par ’gyur bar ’dod la rag | 
If both the presence and absence of an end were established, you would have to assert non-presence and non-absence as established. 
atha vā sarvabhāvānāṃ śūnyatvāc chāśvatādayaḥ |
kva kasya katamāḥ kasmāt saṃbhaviṣyanti dṛṣṭayaḥ ||29|| 
若亦有無邊 是二得成者
非有非無邊 是則亦應成 
| yaṅ na dṅos po thams cad dag | stoṅ phyir rtag la sogs lta ba |
| gaṅ dag gaṅ du gaṅ la ni | | (7)ci las kun tu ’byuṅ bar ’gyur | 
And because all things are empty, about what and in whom do views such as that of permanence spring forth? 
sarvadṛṣṭiprahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat |
anukampām upādāya taṃ namasyāmi gautamam ||30|| 
一切法空故 世間常等見
何處於何時 誰起是諸見 
 
I bow down to Gautama, whose kindness holds one close, who revealed the sublime dharma in order to let go of all views. 
dṛṣṭiparīkṣā nāma saptaviṃśatitamaṃ prakaraṇaṃ samāptaṃ | 
中論觀邪見品第二十七(三十一偈) 
| lta ba brtag pa źes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa ñi śu bdun pa’o || 
Investigation of Views 
 
 
|| gaṅ gis thugs brtse ñer bzuṅ nas | | lta ba thams cad spaṅ ba’i phyir |
| dam pa’i chos ni ston mdzad pa | | goo tam de la phyag ’tshal lo ||
(19a1)|| dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa śes rab ces bya ba theg pa chen po’i chos mṅon pa rnam par gźag pa | | don dam pa’i de kho na yaṅ dag par ston pa | śes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul gsal bar byed pa | slob (2)dpon bdag ñid chen po ’phags pa klu sgrub mi ’phrogs pa’i mkhyen rab daṅ thugs rjer ldan pa | de bźin gśegs pa’i theg pa bla na med pa’i tshul gsal bar byed pa | rab tu dga’ ba’i sa bsgrubs nas | bde ba can gyi źiṅ du gśegs (3)pa | ’jig rten gyi khams daṅ ba’i ’od ces bya bar | de bźin gśegs pa ye śes ’byuṅ gnas ’od ces bya bar ’gyur bas mdzad pa rdzogs so || || dbaṅ phyug dam pa’i mṅa’ bdag rgyal po chen po dpal lha btsan po’i bka’ luṅ gis | (4)rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po dbu ma pa | dzñ’a na garbha daṅ | źu chen gyi lo tstsha ba dge sloṅ cog ro klu’i rgyal mtshan gyis bsgyur ciṅ źus te gtan la phab pa | ’di la rab tu byed pa ñi śu rtsa bdun | | śloo ka bźi brgya bźi bcu rtsa dgu yod | bam po ni phyed daṅ (5)gñis su byas so | | slad kyis kha che’i groṅ khyer dpe med kyi dbus | gtsug lag khaṅ rin chen sbas pa’i dbus su | kha che’i mkhan po ha su ma ti daṅ | bod kyi sgra bsgyur gyi lo tstsha ba pa tshab ñi ma grags kyis mi’i bdag po ’phags pa lha’i sku riṅ la (6)’grel pa tshig gsal ba daṅ bstun nas bcos pa’o || || slad kyis ra sa ’phrul snaṅ gi gtsug lag khaṅ du | rgya gar gyi mkhan po ka na ka daṅ | lo tstsha ba de ñid kyis źu chen bgyis pa’o || 
 
Go to Wiki Documentation
Enhet: Det humanistiske fakultet   Utviklet av: IT-seksjonen ved HF
Login