English
English version: 'Even 'shang kong' (emptiness) is empty, what about me?' Chapter Nine: Observing Cause and Effect (Guan Yinguo Men) Furthermore, all dharmas are empty. Why? Because all dharmas have no self-nature and do not come from elsewhere. As it is said: 'The result (Guo) in the midst of many conditions (Zhong Yuan), Is ultimately unattainable, Nor does it come from elsewhere, How then can there be a result?' If the many conditions, whether individually or collectively, do not contain the result, as previously stated. Moreover, the result does not come from elsewhere; if it came from elsewhere, it would not arise from conditions, and there would be no combined effect of the many conditions. If the result is not in the many conditions and does not come from elsewhere, then it is empty. Because the result is empty, all conditioned dharmas (Youwei Fa) are empty; because conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas (Wuwei Fa) are also empty; if conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, what about me? Chapter Ten: Observing the Agent (Guan Zuozhe Men) Furthermore, all dharmas are empty. Why? Because self-made (Zi Zuo), other-made (Ta Zuo), jointly-made (Gong Zuo), and causeless-made (Wu Yin Zuo) are unattainable. As it is said: 'Self-made and other-made, Jointly-made and causeless-made, These are unattainable, Then there is no suffering (Ku).' Suffering is self-made, that is not so. Why? If it is self-made, then it is making its own essence; one cannot use this thing to make this thing, just as consciousness (Shi) cannot recognize itself, a finger cannot touch itself, therefore it cannot be said to be self-made. Other-made is also not so; how can another make suffering? Someone asks: 'The many conditions are called 'other' (Ta); the many conditions make suffering, therefore it is called 'other-made'; why do you say it does not come from other-made?' The answer is: 'If the many conditions are called 'other,' then suffering is made by the many conditions; this suffering arises from the many conditions, then it is the nature of the many conditions; if it is the nature of the many conditions, how can it be called 'other'? Like a clay bottle (Ni Ping), the clay (Ni) cannot be called 'other'; also like a gold bracelet (Jin Chuan), the gold (Jin) cannot be called 'other'; suffering is also like this, because it arises from the many conditions, the many conditions cannot be called 'other.' 'Furthermore, these many conditions also do not have self-nature, therefore they are not independent; therefore, it cannot be said to come from -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 众缘生果。如《中论》中说： “‘果从众缘生， 是缘不自在； 若缘不自在， 云何缘生果？’
Chinese
“如是，苦不得从他作。自作他作亦不然，有二过故。若说自作苦、他作苦，则有自作、他作过，是故共作苦亦不然。若苦无因生，亦不然，有无量过故。如经说：‘裸形迦叶问佛：“苦自作耶？”佛默然不答。“世尊！若苦不自作者，是他作耶？佛亦不答。世尊！若尔者，苦自作他作耶？”佛亦不答。“世尊！若尔者，苦无因无缘作耶？”佛亦不答。’如是四问，佛皆不答者，当知苦则是空。” 问曰：“佛说是经，不说苦是空。” “随可度众生故作是说。是裸形迦叶谓人是苦因，有我者说：好丑皆神所作，神常清净无有苦恼，所知所解悉皆是神，神作好丑苦乐，还受种种身。以是邪见故，问佛苦自作耶？是故佛不答。苦实非是我作。若我是苦因，因我生苦，我即无常。何以故？若法是因及从因生法，皆亦无常。若我无常，则罪福果报皆悉断灭，修梵行福报是亦应空。若我是苦因，则无解脱。何以故？我若作苦，离苦无我能作苦者，以无身故。若无身而能作苦者，得解脱者亦应是苦。如是则无解脱，而实有解脱，是故苦自作，不然。他作苦亦不然，离苦何有人而作苦与他？复次，若 现代汉语译本 众缘生果。如《中论》（Madhyamaka-karika，根本中论）中说： ‘果从众缘生， 是缘不自在； 若缘不自在， 云何缘生果？’ 如是，苦不得从他作。自作他作亦不然，有二过故。若说自作苦、他作苦，则有自作、他作过，是故共作苦亦不然。若苦无因生，亦不然，有无量过故。如经说：‘裸形迦叶（Kasyapa，人名）问佛：“苦自作耶？”佛默然不答。“世尊！若苦不自作者，是他作耶？佛亦不答。世尊！若尔者，苦自作他作耶？”佛亦不答。“世尊！若尔者，苦无因无缘作耶？”佛亦不答。’如是四问，佛皆不答者，当知苦则是空。 问曰：‘佛说是经，不说苦是空。’ 随可度众生故作是说。是裸形迦叶谓人是苦因，有我者说：好丑皆神所作，神常清净无有苦恼，所知所解悉皆是神，神作好丑苦乐，还受种种身。以是邪见故，问佛苦自作耶？是故佛不答。苦实非是我作。若我是苦因，因我生苦，我即无常。何以故？若法是因及从因生法，皆亦无常。若我无常，则罪福果报皆悉断灭，修梵行福报是亦应空。若我是苦因，则无解脱。何以故？我若作苦，离苦无我能作苦者，以无身故。若无身而能作苦者，得解脱者亦应是苦。如是则无解脱，而实有解脱，是故苦自作，不然。他作苦亦不然，离苦何有人而作苦与他？复次，若
English
English version Conditions give rise to effects. As it is said in the *Madhyamaka-karika* (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way): 'Effects arise from many conditions, These conditions are not independent; If conditions are not independent, How can conditions produce effects?' Thus, suffering cannot be created by others. Nor can it be self-created or created by both, because there are two faults. If it is said that suffering is self-created or created by others, then there are the faults of self-creation and other-creation. Therefore, suffering created by both is also not possible. If suffering arises without a cause, that is also not possible, because there are countless faults. As the sutra says: 'Kasyapa (name of a person), the naked ascetic, asked the Buddha: "Is suffering self-created?" The Buddha remained silent and did not answer. "Venerable One! If suffering is not self-created, is it created by others?" The Buddha also did not answer. "Venerable One! If that is the case, is suffering created by both self and others?" The Buddha also did not answer. "Venerable One! If that is the case, is suffering created without cause or condition?" The Buddha also did not answer.' Since the Buddha did not answer these four questions, it should be known that suffering is empty. Question: 'The Buddha spoke this sutra, but did not say that suffering is empty.' He spoke in this way to suit the beings who could be liberated. This Kasyapa, the naked ascetic, considered people to be the cause of suffering. Those who hold to a self say: good and bad are all created by God. God is always pure and free from suffering. All that is known and understood is God. God creates good, bad, suffering, and happiness, and receives various bodies in return. Because of this wrong view, he asked the Buddha whether suffering is self-created. That is why the Buddha did not answer. Suffering is actually not created by me. If I am the cause of suffering, and suffering arises from me, then I am impermanent. Why? If a dharma is a cause and a dharma arises from a cause, both are also impermanent. If I am impermanent, then the karmic results of good and evil will all be cut off, and the merit of practicing pure conduct should also be empty. If I am the cause of suffering, then there is no liberation. Why? If I create suffering, there is no 'I' apart from suffering who can create suffering, because there is no body. If one can create suffering without a body, then one who attains liberation should also be suffering. In this case, there is no liberation, but in reality there is liberation. Therefore, suffering is self-created, which is not possible. Suffering created by others is also not possible. Apart from suffering, who is there who creates suffering for others? Furthermore, if --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
他作苦者，则为是自在天作。如此邪见问故，佛亦不答。而实不从自在天作。何以故？性相违故。如牛子还是牛。若万物从自在天生，皆应似自在天，是其子故。复次，若自在天作众生者，不应以苦与子，是故不应言自在天作苦。” 问曰：“众生从自在天生，苦乐亦从自在所生，以不识乐因，故与其苦。” 答曰：“若众生是自在天子者，唯应以乐遮苦，不应与苦。亦应但供养自在天则灭苦得乐，而实不尔，但自行苦乐因缘而自受报，非自在天作。 “复次，彼若自在者，不应有所须。有所须自作，不名自在；若无所须，何用变化作万物如小儿戏？ “复次，若自在作众生者，谁复作是自在？若自在自作，则不然，如物不能自作；若更有作者，则不名自在。 “复次，若自在是作者，则于作中无有障碍，念即能作。如自在经说：‘自在欲作万物，行诸苦行，即生诸腹行虫；复行苦行，生诸飞鸟；复行苦行，生诸人天。’若行苦行，初生毒虫、次生飞鸟、后生人天，当知众生从业因缘生，不从苦行有。 “复次，若自在作万物者，为住何处而作万物？是住处为是自在作？为是他作？若自在作者，为住何处作？若住余处作，余处复谁作？如是则无穷。若他作者，则有二自在。是事 现代汉语译本：如果有人认为苦难是由自在天（Maheśvara，印度教神祇，被认为是宇宙的创造者和毁灭者）所创造，那么这种观点就属于邪见。因为佛陀不会回答这种基于邪见的问题。事实上，万物并非由自在天所创造。为什么呢？因为它们的本性相互违背。就像牛所生的只能是牛一样。如果万物都是由自在天所生，那么它们都应该像自在天，因为它们是自在天的子女。 进一步说，如果自在天创造众生，他不应该把苦难加于自己的子女。因此，不应该说苦难是由自在天所创造。 有人问：‘众生由自在天所生，苦乐也由自在天所生。因为众生不认识快乐的根源，所以自在天给予他们苦难。’ 回答说：‘如果众生是自在天的子女，那么自在天应该只用快乐来遮蔽苦难，而不应该给予他们苦难。众生也应该只要供养自在天就能灭除苦难获得快乐。但事实并非如此，众生是自己通过苦乐的因缘而承受果报，而不是由自在天所创造。 进一步说，如果自在天是‘自在’的，他就不应该有所需求。如果他有所需求，并且自己去满足这些需求，那就不配称为‘自在’。如果他没有任何需求，那他为什么要像小孩子玩游戏一样变化出万物呢？’ 进一步说，如果自在天创造众生，那么是谁创造了自在天呢？如果自在天是自己创造的，那是不可能的，就像物体不能自己创造自己一样。如果另有创造者，那么自在天就不能被称为‘自在’。 进一步说，如果自在天是创造者，那么他在创造的过程中就不应该有任何障碍，只要他一想就能创造出来。就像《自在经》所说：‘自在天想要创造万物，于是进行各种苦行，就生出了腹行虫；又进行苦行，生出了飞鸟；又进行苦行，生出了人和天。’如果通过苦行，先是生出毒虫，然后是飞鸟，最后是人和天，那么就应该知道众生是由业力的因缘所生，而不是由苦行所生。 进一步说，如果自在天创造万物，那么他是在什么地方创造万物的呢？这个住所是自在天创造的，还是由其他创造者创造的呢？如果是自在天创造的，那么自在天又是在什么地方创造这个住所的呢？如果自在天在其他地方创造，那么这个‘其他地方’又是谁创造的呢？这样追问下去就没有穷尽了。如果是其他创造者创造的，那么就存在两个自在天。这件事情...
English
English version: If someone believes that suffering is created by Maheśvara (a Hindu deity, considered the creator and destroyer of the universe), then that view is a false view. Because the Buddha would not answer such questions based on false views. In fact, all things are not created by Maheśvara. Why? Because their natures contradict each other. Just as what is born of a cow is only a cow. If all things are born from Maheśvara, then they should all resemble Maheśvara, because they are his children. Furthermore, if Maheśvara creates beings, he should not inflict suffering on his children. Therefore, it should not be said that suffering is created by Maheśvara. Someone asks: 'Beings are born from Maheśvara, and happiness and suffering are also born from Maheśvara. Because beings do not recognize the source of happiness, Maheśvara gives them suffering.' The answer is: 'If beings are the children of Maheśvara, then Maheśvara should only use happiness to cover up suffering, and should not give them suffering. Beings should also only need to make offerings to Maheśvara to eliminate suffering and obtain happiness. But this is not the case. Beings themselves bear the consequences through the causes and conditions of suffering and happiness, and it is not created by Maheśvara.' Furthermore, if Maheśvara is 'independent', he should not have any needs. If he has needs and satisfies them himself, then he is not worthy of being called 'independent'. If he has no needs, then why does he transform all things like a child playing games?' Furthermore, if Maheśvara creates beings, then who created Maheśvara? If Maheśvara created himself, that is impossible, just as an object cannot create itself. If there is another creator, then Maheśvara cannot be called 'independent'. Furthermore, if Maheśvara is the creator, then he should not have any obstacles in the process of creation, and he should be able to create as soon as he thinks of it. Just as the 'Maheśvara Sutra' says: 'Maheśvara wanted to create all things, so he performed various ascetic practices, and then crawling insects were born; then he performed ascetic practices again, and birds were born; then he performed ascetic practices again, and humans and gods were born.' If poisonous insects are born first through ascetic practices, then birds, and finally humans and gods, then it should be known that beings are born from the causes and conditions of karma, and not from ascetic practices. Furthermore, if Maheśvara creates all things, then where does he create all things? Is this dwelling place created by Maheśvara, or by another creator? If it is created by Maheśvara, then where does Maheśvara create this dwelling place? If Maheśvara creates in another place, then who created this 'other place'? There is no end to such questioning. If it is created by another creator, then there are two Maheśvaras. This matter... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 不然，是故世间万物非自在所作。