English
English version: ‘In the mind; or in many minds?’ The Twelve Nidānas (Twelve Nidānas, the twelve links in the Buddhist chain of dependent origination) are in reality without arising. If it is said that there is arising, is it in one mind? Or is it in many minds? If it is in one mind, then cause and effect arise simultaneously. Moreover, cause and effect existing simultaneously is not reasonable. Why? Because in all things, there is first a cause and then an effect. If it is in many minds, then the Twelve Nidānas will each be different. After the shared mind is first divided and extinguished, who will serve as the condition? Extinguished dharmas (dharma, phenomena) have nothing, how can they be a cause? If the Twelve Nidānas exist first, then whether in one mind or in many minds, both cases are not valid. Therefore, all conditions (hetu-pratyaya, all conditions and factors) are empty. Because conditions are empty, the dharmas arising from conditions are also empty. Therefore, it should be understood that all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, conditioned phenomena) are empty. If conditioned dharmas are empty, how much more so is ‘I’? Because of the conditioned dharmas of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates), the twelve āyatanas (dvādaśa-āyatana, the twelve sense bases), and the eighteen dhātus (aṣṭādaśa-dhātu, the eighteen elements), it is said that there is ‘I’, just as because there is fuel, it is said that there is burning; if the skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus are empty, then there is no dharma that can be referred to as ‘I’, just as without fuel, it cannot be said that there is burning. As the sutra says: ‘The Buddha told the bhikshus (bhikṣu, monks): Because of ‘I’, there is ‘mine’; if there is no ‘I’, there is no ‘mine’.’ In this way, because conditioned dharmas are empty, it should be understood that unconditioned Nirvāṇa (asaṃskṛta-nirvāṇa-dharma, unconditioned Nirvana) is also empty. Why? Because when these five skandhas are extinguished, they do not give rise to other five skandhas; this is called Nirvāṇa. The five skandhas are originally empty, so what is extinguished to be called Nirvāṇa? Moreover, ‘I’ is also empty, so who attains Nirvāṇa? Furthermore, the unarisen dharma is called Nirvāṇa. If the arisen dharma is established, then the unarisen dharma should also be established; the arisen dharma is not established, the conditions have already been discussed before, and will be discussed again later, so the arisen dharma is not established. Because of the arisen dharma, there is the name ‘unarisen’; if the arisen dharma is not established, how can the unarisen dharma be established? Therefore, the conditioned, the unconditioned, and ‘I’ are all empty. Chapter Two: Observing the Existence or Non-Existence of Results Furthermore, all dharmas (dharma, phenomena) do not arise. Why? If they exist beforehand, they do not arise; If they do not exist beforehand, they also do not arise; If they both exist and do not exist, they also do not arise; Who then can have arising? If --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
果因中先有则不应生，先无亦不应生，先有无亦不应生。 何以故？若果因中先有而生，是则无穷。如果先未生而生者，今生已复应更生。何以故？因中常有故。从是有边复应更生，是则无穷。 若谓生已更不生，未生而生者，是中无有生理；是故先有而生，是事不然。 复次，若因中先有果，而谓未生而生、生已不生者，是亦二俱有而一生一不生，无有是处。 复次，若未生定有者，生已则应无。何以故？生、未生共相违故；生未生相违故，是二作相亦相违。 复次，有与无相违，无与有相违，若生已亦有、未生时亦有者，则生、未生不应有异。何以故？若有生，生已亦有、未生亦有，如是生、未生有何差别？生、未生无差别，是事不然，是故有不生。 复次，有已先成，何用更生？如作已不应作，成已不应成，是故有法不应生。 复次若有生，因中未生时果应可见，而实不可见；如泥中瓶、蒲中席，应可见而实不可见，是故有不生。 问曰：“果虽先有，以未变故不见。” 答曰：“若瓶未生时瓶体未变故不见者，以何相知言泥中先有瓶？为以瓶相有瓶？为以牛相、马相故有瓶耶？若泥中无瓶相者，亦无牛相、马相，是岂不名无耶？是故汝说因中先有果 现代汉语译本： 如果结果在原因中已经存在，那么就不应该再产生；如果结果在原因中先前不存在，那么也不应该产生；如果结果在原因中既存在又不存在，那么也不应该产生。 为什么呢？如果结果在原因中已经存在而产生，那么就会导致无穷无尽。如果先前没有产生而产生，那么现在已经产生的就应该再次产生。为什么呢？因为在原因中始终存在着结果。从这个‘有’的边际出发，就应该再次产生，这样就会导致无穷无尽。 如果说已经产生的不再产生，没有产生的却产生，那么这其中就没有产生的道理；因此，说先前存在而产生，这是不正确的。 再者，如果原因中先前存在结果，却说没有产生而产生、产生后不再产生，那么这就是两者都存在，一个产生一个不产生，没有这样的道理。 再者，如果没有产生就确定存在，那么产生后就应该不存在。为什么呢？因为产生和未产生是相互违背的；产生和未产生相互违背，这两种作用也是相互违背的。 再者，‘有’和‘无’相互违背，‘无’和‘有’相互违背，如果产生后也是‘有’、未产生时也是‘有’，那么产生和未产生就不应该有区别。为什么呢？如果有产生，产生后也是‘有’、未产生也是‘有’，那么这样产生和未产生有什么差别？产生和未产生没有差别，这是不正确的，所以‘有’不会产生。 再者，已经存在的东西已经先完成了，为什么还要再产生？如同已经做完的事情不应该再做，已经完成的事情不应该再完成，所以已经存在的法不应该产生。 再者，如果‘有’会产生，那么在原因中未产生时，结果就应该可以看见，但实际上是看不见的；如同泥土中的瓶子、灯芯草中的席子，应该可以看见但实际上是看不见的，所以‘有’不会产生。 有人问：‘结果虽然先前存在，因为没有变化所以看不见。’ 回答说：‘如果瓶子未产生时，瓶子的本体没有变化所以看不见，那么用什么特征知道泥土中先前存在瓶子呢？是用瓶子的特征存在瓶子？还是用牛的特征、马的特征而存在瓶子呢？如果泥土中没有瓶子的特征，也没有牛的特征、马的特征，这难道不叫做‘无’吗？所以你说原因中先前存在结果，是不对的。
English
English version: If the result already exists in the cause, then it should not arise; if the result does not exist in the cause beforehand, then it should not arise either; if the result both exists and does not exist in the cause, then it should not arise. Why is that? If the result already exists in the cause and then arises, this would lead to infinite regress. If it arises without having arisen before, then what has already arisen now should arise again. Why is that? Because the result always exists in the cause. Starting from this 'existence' side, it should arise again, which would lead to infinite regress. If it is said that what has already arisen does not arise again, but what has not arisen arises, then there is no principle of arising in this; therefore, to say that it arises because it already exists is not correct. Furthermore, if the result already exists in the cause, and yet it is said that it arises without having arisen and does not arise after having arisen, then this means that both exist, one arises and one does not arise, which is not reasonable. Furthermore, if it is determined to exist without having arisen, then it should not exist after having arisen. Why is that? Because arising and not arising are mutually contradictory; because arising and not arising are mutually contradictory, these two actions are also contradictory. Furthermore, 'existence' and 'non-existence' are mutually contradictory, 'non-existence' and 'existence' are mutually contradictory. If it exists after arising and also exists before arising, then there should be no difference between arising and not arising. Why is that? If there is arising, and it exists after arising and also exists before arising, then what difference is there between arising and not arising? If there is no difference between arising and not arising, this is not correct, therefore 'existence' does not arise. Furthermore, what already exists is already complete, why should it arise again? Just as what has already been done should not be done again, what has already been completed should not be completed again, therefore a dharma (law/phenomenon) that already exists should not arise. Furthermore, if 'existence' arises, then the result should be visible in the cause before it arises, but in reality, it is not visible; just as the pot in the clay, the mat in the reeds, should be visible but in reality are not visible, therefore 'existence' does not arise. Someone asks: 'Although the result already exists, it is not visible because it has not changed.' The answer is: 'If the essence of the pot is not visible when the pot has not arisen because it has not changed, then by what characteristic do you know that the pot already exists in the clay? Is it that the pot exists because of the characteristic of the pot? Or does the pot exist because of the characteristic of the cow, the characteristic of the horse? If there is no characteristic of the pot in the clay, and there is also no characteristic of the cow, the characteristic of the horse, is this not called 'non-existence'? Therefore, what you say about the result already existing in the cause is not correct.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
而生者，是事不然。复次，变法即是果者，即应因中先有变。何以故？汝法因中先有果故。若瓶等先有，变亦先有，应当可见而实不可得，是故汝言未变故不见，是事不然。若谓未变不名为果，则果毕竟不可得。何以故？是变先无，后亦应无，故瓶等果毕竟不可得。若谓变已是果者，则因中先无，如是则不定：或因中先有果，或先无果。” 问曰：“先有变，但不可得见。凡物自有有而不可得者，如物或有近而不可知；或有远而不可知；或根坏故不可知；或心不住故不可知；障故不可知；同故不可知；胜故不可知；微细故不可知。近而不可知者，如眼中药。远而不可知者，如鸟飞虚空高翔远逝。根坏故不可知者，如盲不见色、聋不闻声、鼻塞不闻香、口爽不知味、身顽不知触、心狂不知实。心不住故不可知者，如心在色等则不知声。障故不可知者，如地障大水、壁障外物。同故不可知者，如黑上墨点。胜故不可知者，如有钟鼓音，不闻捎拂声。细微故不可知者，如微尘等不现。如是诸法虽有，以八因缘故不可知。汝说因中变不可得、瓶等不可得者，是事不然。何以故？是事虽有，以八因缘故不可得。” 答曰：“变法及瓶等果，不同八因缘不可得。何以故？若变法及瓶等，果极近不可得者，小远应可得； 现代汉语译本：如果说生（产生）就是这样，那是不对的。进一步说，如果变化（变法）就是果，那么原因中就应该先有变化。为什么呢？因为按照你的理论，原因中应该先有结果。如果瓶子等事物是先有的，那么变化也应该是先有的，应该可以被看到，但实际上却看不到，所以你说因为没有变化所以看不到，这是不对的。如果说没有变化就不能称为果，那么果就永远无法得到。为什么呢？因为变化先前没有，之后也应该没有，所以瓶子等果永远无法得到。如果说变化之后才是果，那么原因中先前就没有果，这样就不确定了：或者原因中先有果，或者先前没有果。” 问：‘先前有变化，只是无法看到。一般事物本身就有存在但无法被看到的，比如有些事物因为太近而无法知道；有些事物因为太远而无法知道；有些事物因为根源坏了而无法知道；有些事物因为心不在焉而无法知道；有些事物因为有障碍而无法知道；有些事物因为相同而无法知道；有些事物因为微弱而无法知道。因为太近而无法知道的，比如眼中的药。因为太远而无法知道的，比如鸟在空中高飞远去。因为根源坏了而无法知道的，比如盲人看不到颜色、聋子听不到声音、鼻子堵塞闻不到香味、舌头麻木尝不出味道、身体麻木感觉不到触觉、精神错乱不知道真实。因为心不在焉而无法知道的，比如心在颜色等事物上就不知道声音。因为有障碍而无法知道的，比如大地阻挡大水、墙壁阻挡外面的东西。因为相同而无法知道的，比如黑色的东西上的墨点。因为微弱而无法知道的，比如钟鼓的声音，就听不到拂尘的声音。因为细微而无法知道的，比如微尘等无法显现。像这些法，虽然存在，但因为这八种原因而无法知道。你说原因中的变化无法得到、瓶子等无法得到，这是不对的。为什么呢？因为这些事物虽然存在，但因为这八种原因而无法得到。’ 答：‘变化（变法）以及瓶子等果，不同于因为八种原因而无法得到的情况。为什么呢？如果变化（变法）以及瓶子等果，是因为太近而无法得到，那么稍微远一点就应该可以得到；