English
English version: If someone says 'refutation,' and 'can be refuted' is definite, then one should refute him in this way; I did not say 'refutation,' and 'can be refuted' is not definite, so one should not refute me in this way. Someone asks: 'The eye sees the prior cause, like a potter making a pot. There is also a later cause, like because there is a disciple, there is a teacher, like after teaching a disciple, one later recognizes that this is a disciple. There is also a simultaneous cause, like a lamp and light. If you say that the prior cause, the later cause, and the simultaneous cause are all unattainable, this is not right.' The answer is: 'Like a potter making a pot, this analogy is not right. Why? If there is no pot yet, with whom does the potter make a cause? Like the potter, all prior causes are unattainable. The later cause is also unattainable in this way, if there is no disciple, who is the teacher? Therefore, the later cause is also unattainable. If you say that the simultaneous cause is like a lamp and light, this is also the same doubtful cause, the lamp and light arise simultaneously, how can they be causes of each other? Like this, the causes and conditions are empty, one should know that all conditioned dharmas (有为法), unconditioned dharmas (无为法), and sentient beings are empty.' Chapter 12: Observing the Gate of Production (观生门第十二) Furthermore, all dharmas are empty. Why? Production (生), non-production (不生), and the time of production (生时) are all unattainable. Now, production has already ceased to produce, non-production also does not produce, and the time of production also does not produce. As it is said: The produced fruit does not produce, non-production also does not produce, Apart from this production and non-production, the time of production also does not produce. 'Production' means the arising and appearance of the fruit, 'non-production' means not yet arisen, not yet appeared, not yet existent, 'the time of production' means beginning to arise but not yet completed. Among these, 'the produced fruit does not produce' means that production has already produced and does not produce again. Why? Because there is the fault of infinity, after doing it, doing it again. If production has already produced, and then produces a second production, the second production has already produced, and then produces a third production, the third production has already produced, and then produces a fourth production; like the initial production has already produced, and then there is a second production, in this way production is endless. This is not right, therefore production does not produce. Furthermore, if one says that production produces, the production that has already produced uses production to produce, this production is non-production producing. This is not right. Why? The initial production is non-production producing, then there are two kinds of production: having produced and then producing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
、不生而生，故汝先定说而今不定。如作已不应作、烧已不应烧、证已不应证，如是生已不应更生；是故生法不生。 不生法亦不生。何以故？不与生合故，又一切不生有生过故。若不生法生，则离生有生，是则不生。若离生有生，则离作有作、离去有去、离食有食，如是则坏世俗法。是事不然，是故不生法不生。复次，若不生法生，一切不生法皆应生；一切凡夫未生阿耨多罗三藐三菩提皆应生，不坏法阿罗汉烦恼不生而生，兔马等角不生而生。是事不然，是故不应说不生而生。 问曰：“不生而生者，如有因缘和合时方作者，方便具足是则不生而生，非一切不生而生，是故不应以一切不生而生为难。” 答曰：“若法生时方作者，方便众缘和合生，是中先定有不生，先无亦不生，又有无亦不生，是三种求生不可得，如先说。是故不生法不生。 “生时亦不生。何以故？有生生过，不生而生过故。生时法，生分不生，如先说。未生分亦不生，如前说。 “复次，若离生有生时，则应生时生，而实离生无生时，是故生时亦不生。 “复次，若人说生时生，则有二生：一、以生时为生，二、以生时生。无有二法，云何言有二生？是故生时亦不生。 “复次，未有生，无生时， 现代汉语译本： '不生而生'是不成立的，所以你先前确定地说，现在又说不确定。如同已经做了不应该再做，已经烧了不应该再烧，已经证得了不应该再证得一样，这样，已经生了就不应该再生；因此，生法（具有生性的法）是不生的。 不生法（没有生性的法）也是不生的。为什么呢？因为它不与生结合，而且一切不生之法会有生起的过失。如果'不生法'生起，那么就成了离开生而有生，这就等于'不生'了。如果离开生而有生，那么就成了离开作而有作，离开去而有去，离开食而有食，这样就会破坏世俗的法则。这种情况是不可能的，所以说'不生法'是不生的。再者，如果'不生法'生起，那么一切'不生法'都应该生起；一切凡夫在未生起阿耨多罗三藐三菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，无上正等正觉）之前都应该生起，不坏法的阿罗汉（arhat，已证得涅槃的圣者）烦恼不生而生，兔和马等的角不生而生。这种情况是不可能的，所以不应该说'不生而生'。 有人问：'不生而生'，比如有因缘和合的时候才产生作用，方便具足了，这就是'不生而生'，不是一切'不生'都会生，所以不应该用一切'不生而生'来责难。 回答说：如果法在生起的时候才产生作用，依靠方便和众多的因缘和合而生，这里面先确定有'不生'，先前没有也不生，又有和没有也不生，这三种情况求生都是不可能得到的，如先前所说。所以'不生法'是不生的。 '生时'（生起的时候）也是不生的。为什么呢？因为有'生'的生起的过失，以及'不生而生'的过失。'生时'的法，'生'的部分是不生的，如先前所说。未生起的部分也是不生的，如先前所说。 再者，如果离开'生'而有'生时'，那么就应该在'生时'生起，但实际上离开'生'是没有'生时'的，所以'生时'也是不生的。 再者，如果有人说'生时'生起，那么就会有两个生起：一是以'生时'为生起，二是以'生时'生。没有两种法，怎么能说有两个生起呢？所以'生时'也是不生的。 再者，在没有生起之前，就没有'生时'。
English
English version: 'Not-arisen arising' is not established, therefore you first determinedly spoke, and now you say it is uncertain. Just as what has been done should not be done again, what has been burned should not be burned again, what has been attained should not be attained again, in the same way, what has arisen should not arise again; therefore, the dharma of arising (the dharma that has the nature of arising) does not arise. The dharma of non-arising (the dharma that does not have the nature of arising) also does not arise. Why? Because it does not combine with arising, and also because all dharmas of non-arising would have the fault of arising. If the 'dharma of non-arising' arises, then it becomes arising apart from arising, which is equivalent to 'non-arising'. If there is arising apart from arising, then there is doing apart from doing, going apart from going, eating apart from eating, and in this way, it would destroy the worldly laws. This situation is impossible, therefore it is said that the 'dharma of non-arising' does not arise. Furthermore, if the 'dharma of non-arising' arises, then all 'dharmas of non-arising' should arise; all ordinary beings before arising to anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment) should arise, the arhat (arhat, a saint who has attained nirvana) of indestructible dharma whose afflictions do not arise, yet arise, and the horns of rabbits and horses, etc., do not arise, yet arise. This situation is impossible, therefore it should not be said 'not-arisen arising'. Someone asks: 'Not-arisen arising', for example, when conditions are harmonious, then it produces an effect, and when the means are complete, this is 'not-arisen arising', not all 'non-arising' will arise, so it should not be used to criticize all 'not-arisen arising'. The answer is: If a dharma only produces an effect when it arises, relying on means and the harmony of many conditions to arise, then there is definitely 'non-arising' here, and it does not arise if it did not exist before, and it does not arise if it both exists and does not exist, and these three situations of seeking arising are impossible to obtain, as previously stated. Therefore, the 'dharma of non-arising' does not arise. The 'time of arising' (the moment of arising) also does not arise. Why? Because there is the fault of the arising of 'arising', and the fault of 'not-arisen arising'. The dharma of the 'time of arising', the part of 'arising' does not arise, as previously stated. The part that has not arisen also does not arise, as previously stated. Furthermore, if there is a 'time of arising' apart from 'arising', then it should arise at the 'time of arising', but in reality, there is no 'time of arising' apart from 'arising', so the 'time of arising' also does not arise. Furthermore, if someone says that the 'time of arising' arises, then there will be two arisings: one is taking the 'time of arising' as arising, and the other is arising at the 'time of arising'. There are not two dharmas, how can it be said that there are two arisings? Therefore, the 'time of arising' also does not arise. Furthermore, before there is arising, there is no 'time of arising'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
生于何处行？生若无行处，则无生时生，是故生时亦不生。 “如是生、不生、生时皆不成，生法不成故。无生，住、灭亦如是。生、住、灭不成故，则有为法亦不成；有为法不成故，无为法亦不成；有为、无为法不成故，众生亦不成。是故当知一切法无生，毕竟空寂故。” 十二门论一卷 现代汉语译本： 从何处产生而行？如果产生没有行处，那么就没有产生时的产生，因此产生时也不是真正的产生。 ‘像这样，产生、不产生、产生时都不成立，产生的法则不能成立。没有产生，安住、灭亡也是如此。产生、安住、灭亡不能成立，那么有为法也不能成立；有为法不能成立，无为法也不能成立；有为法、无为法不能成立，众生也不能成立。因此应当知道一切法没有产生，毕竟是空寂的。’ 《十二门论》一卷
English
English version: From where does one arise and proceed? If arising has no place to proceed to, then there is no arising at the time of arising; therefore, at the time of arising, there is also no arising. ‘Thus, arising, non-arising, and the time of arising are all unestablished, because the law of arising is unestablished. No arising, abiding, and ceasing are also like this. Because arising, abiding, and ceasing are unestablished, then conditioned dharmas (有为法) are also unestablished; because conditioned dharmas are unestablished, unconditioned dharmas (无为法) are also unestablished; because conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are unestablished, sentient beings are also unestablished. Therefore, one should know that all dharmas are without arising, ultimately empty and still.’ 《Twelve Gate Treatise》, one fascicle --------------------------------------------------------------------------------