9. Far-Reaching Discriminating Awareness 9 第九品：智慧 ९. प्रज्ञापारमिता

 9. Far-Reaching Discriminating Awareness

9 第九品：智慧

९. प्रज्ञापारमिता

(1) The Sage has spoken about all these branches

For the sake of discriminating awareness.

Therefore, generate discriminating awareness

With the wish to pacify sufferings.

此前諸要目，

佛為智慧說。

故欲息苦者，

當啟空性慧。

इमं परिकरं सर्वं प्रज्ञार्थं हि मुनिर्जगौ

तस्मादुत्पादयेत् प्रज्ञां दुःखनिवृत्तिकाङ्क्षया

(2) Surface and deepest,

These are accepted as being the two truths.

The deepest aren't cognitive objects of the dualistic mind;

The dualistic mind is spoken of (in terms of) the surface.

世俗與勝義，

許之為二諦；

勝義非心境，

說心是世俗。

संवृतिः परमार्थश्च सत्यद्वयमिदं मतं

बुद्धेरगोचरस्तत्त्वं बुद्धिः संवृतिरुच्यते

(3) In light of that, the world is seen to be of two types:

Yogis and common people.

And regarding that, the world of common people

Is undermined by the yogi world.

世見二種師：

瑜伽師一般。

一般世間師，

瑜伽師所破。

तत्र लोको द्विधा दृष्टो योगी प्राकृतकस्तथा

तत्र प्राकृतको लोको योगिलोकेन बाध्यते

(4) Through differences in their intelligence,

Yogis too are undermined by progressively higher ones,

By means of examples accepted by both and because,

When not scrutinizing, (both accept that causes function) for the sake of the result.

復因慧差別，

層層更超勝。

以二同許喻，

為果不深察。

बाध्यन्ते धीविशेषेण योगिनो ऽप्युत्तरोत्तरैः

दृष्टान्तेनोभयेष्टेन कार्यार्थमविचारतः

(5) Functional phenomena are seen by the (common) world

And conceptualized to be absolutely existent,

And not like an illusion. It's in this regard

That there's dispute between the yogis and the (common) world.

世人見世俗，

分別為真實，

而非如幻化，

故諍瑜伽師。

लोकेन भावा दृश्यन्ते कल्प्यन्ते चापि तत्त्वतः

न तु मायावदित्यत्र विवादो योगिलोकयोः

(6) But even form and so on, (as perceived by) straightforward cognition itself,

Is (established only) by popular consensus and not by valid cognition;

And that's false, like the popular consensus that

What's unclean and so forth is clean and so on.

色等現量境，

共稱非智量。

彼等誠虛偽，

如垢而謂凈。

प्रत्यक्षमपि रूपादि प्रसिद्ध्या न प्रमाणतः

अशुच्यादिषु शुच्यादिप्रसिद्धिरिव सा मृषा

(7) For the sake of causing the (common) world to enter,

The Guardian (Buddha) has taught that there are (truly existent) functional phenomena.

Their actual nature, however, is that they aren't "momentary things."

(Suppose, like the Sautrantikas,) you objected, "But, it's supposed to contradict the (common) surface (view)."

為導世間人，

佛說無常法。

真實非剎那。

豈不違世俗？

लोकावतारणार्थं च भावा नाथेन देशिताः

तत्त्वतः क्षणिका नैते संवृत्या चेद्विरुध्यते

(8) (Well ,) surface (truth asserted) by yogis has no fault,

And that's a seeing of their actual nature in contrast with the (common) world's (view);

Otherwise, (their) ascertainment of the uncleanliness of a woman's (body, for instance,)

Would be undermined by the (common) world.

瑜伽量無過。

待俗謂見真，

否則觀不凈，

將違世間見。

न दोषो योगिसंवृत्या लोकात्ते तत्त्वदर्शिनः

अन्यथा लोकबाधा स्यादशुचिस्त्रीनिरूपणे

(9) (Furthermore,) from Triumphant Ones, who are like an illusion, (comes) positive force,

In the same way as if they (actually) were (truly existent) functional phenomena.

Suppose you objected, "But, if a limited being were like an illusion,

Then how could he take rebirth, once having died?"

供幻佛生德，

如供實有佛。

有情若如幻，

死已云何生？

मायोपमाज्जिनात् पुण्यं सद्भावे ऽपि कथं यथा

यदि मायोपमः सत्त्वः किं पुनर्जायते मृतः

(10) (Well,) so long as conditions are gathered together,

For that long an illusion lasts as well;

And how could a limited being be truly existent

Merely because his continuity lasts longer?

眾緣聚合已，

雖幻亦當生。

云何因久住，

有情成實有？

यावत्प्रत्ययसामग्री तावन्मायापि वर्तते

दीर्घसंतानमात्रेण कथं सत्त्वो ऽस्ति सत्यतः

(11) In murdering, and so on, a person that is (actually) an illusion,

There's no negative force, since it hasn't a mind;

But, with someone having the (type of) illusion a mind (actually) is,

Positive and negative forces accrue.

幻人行殺施，

無心無罪福。

於有幻心者，

則生幻罪福。

मायापुरुषघातादौ चित्ताभावान्न पापकं

चित्तमायासमेते तु पापपुण्यसमुद्भवः

मन्त्रादीनामसामर्थ्यान्न मायाचित्तसंभवः

(12) Because mantras and so forth lack the ability,

They cannot produce an (actual) illusory mind.

And even that illusory one that arises from varying conditions

Is of varying sorts,

(Since) nowhere is there one condition

Having the ability for (producing) all.

諸咒無情識，

不生如幻心。

種種因緣生，

種種如幻物。

一緣生一切，

畢竟此非有。

सापि नानाविधा माया नानाप्रत्ययसंभवा

नैकस्य सर्वसामर्थ्यं प्रत्ययस्यास्ति कुत्रचित्

(13) (Suppose you asked, )

"If, in deepest (truth), someone were released in (natural) nirvana

And, in surface (truth), were circling in samsara;

Then, since Buddha as well would be circling in samsara,

What use would there be with bodhisattva behavior?"

勝義若涅槃，

世俗悉輪迴，

則佛亦輪迴，

菩提行何用？

निर्वृतः परमार्थेन संवृत्या यदि संसरेत्

बुद्धो ऽपि संसरेदेवं ततः किं बोधिचर्यया

(14) (Well,) even an illusion cannot be turned back,

Unless the continuity of its conditions is cut.

Yet, when the continuity of its conditions is cut,

It doesn't arise even in surface (truth).

諸緣若未絕，

縱幻亦不滅。

諸緣若斷絕，

俗中亦不生。

प्रत्ययानामनुच्छेदे मायाप्युच्छिद्यते न हि

प्रत्ययानां तु विच्छेदात् संवृत्यापि न संभवः

(15) (Suppose, like the Chittamatrins, you then asked,)

"When even the deceptive awareness (of it) doesn't (truly) exist,

By what is the illusion being focused on?"

(Well,) when the illusion itself doesn't (externally) exist, according to you,

Then, on what is it being focused?

亂識若亦無，

以何緣幻境？

若許無幻境，

心識何所緣？

यदा न भ्रान्तिरप्यस्ति माया केनोपलभ्यते

यदा मायैव ते नास्ति तदा किमुपलभ्यते

(16) Suppose (you answered,)

"In actuality, it exists as something else:

It's an aspect of mind itself."

(Well,) when mind itself is what the illusion (actually) is,

Then what's being seen by what?

所緣異實境，

境相即心體。

幻境若即心，

何者見何者？

चित्तस्यैव स आकारो यद्यप्यन्यो ऽस्ति तत्त्वतः

चित्तमेव यदा माया तदा किं केन दृश्यते

(17) It's been said by the Guardian for the World, in fact,

"Mind cannot see mind."

Just as the edge of a sword cannot cut itself,

So (it is with) the mind.

世間主亦言：

心不自見心。

猶如刀劍鋒，

不能自割自。

उक्तं च लोकनाथेन चित्तं चित्तं न पश्यति

न च्छिनत्ति यथात्मानमसिधारा तथा मनः

(18) (Suppose you responded,)

"But, it's just like how a candle flame

Perfectly illuminates itself as a phenomenon."

(Well,) the flame of a candle isn't being illuminated,

Since it's not something that had been obscured by darkness.

若謂如燈火，

如實明自身。

燈火非自明，

暗不自蔽故。

आत्मभावं यथा दीपः संप्रकाशयतीति चेत्

नैव प्रकाश्यते दीपो यस्मान्न तमसावृतः

(19) Suppose (you replied),

"Well, a blue object, (for example,) doesn't depend on something else

For its being blue, as does a (clear) crystal;

So like this, some things are seen that depend on another

And some that do not so depend."

如晶青依他，

物青不依他。

如是亦得見，

識依不依他。

न हि स्फटिकवन्नीलं नीलत्वे ऽन्यमपेक्षते

तथा किंचित् परापेक्षमनपेक्षं च दृश्यते

(20) (Well,) when something is (an example of) non-blue,

It can't make itself blue by itself;

(And what blue object

Can make itself blue by itself?)

非於非青性，

而自成青性。

अनीलत्वे न तन्नीलं कुर्यादात्मानमात्मना

नीलमेव हि को नीलं कुर्यादात्मानमात्मना

अनीलत्वे न तन्नीलं कुर्यादात्मानमात्मना

(21) (Suppose you persisted,)

"But, as it's cognized by a cognition,

It can be said, 'The candle flame is illuminating itself.'"

(Well,) upon its being cognized by what can that statement be made,

"A mind is illuminating itself?"

若謂識了知，

故說燈能明。

自心本自明，

由何識知耶？

दीपः प्रकाशत इति ज्ञात्वा ज्ञानेन कथ्यते

बुद्धिः प्रकाशत इति ज्ञात्वेदं केन कथ्यते

(22) And when it's never been seen by anyone,

Then discussing whether it's (self) luminous

Or not (self) luminous is meaningless,

Like the beautiful looks of the daughter of a barren woman.

若識皆不見，

則明或不明，

猶如石女媚，

說彼亦無義。

प्रकाशा वाप्रकाशा वा यदा दृष्टा न केनचित्

वन्ध्यादुहितृलीलेव कथ्यमानापि सा मुधा

(23) (Suppose you insisted,)

"But, if reflexive awareness doesn't exist,

Then how does a consciousness come to be recalled?"

(Well,) a recollection comes about from a connection

With another (object) that was experienced, like the poison from a rat.

若無自證分，

心識怎憶念？

心境相連故，

能知如鼠毒。

यदि नास्ति स्वसंवित्तिर्विज्ञानं स्मर्यते कथम्

अन्यानुभूते संबन्धात् स्मृतिराखुविषं यथा

(24) (And suppose you persisted,)

"But, it can illuminate itself, because,

When endowed with other conditions, there's the seeing (of others' minds)."

(Well,) a (buried treasure) vase that's seen from applying actualized magic eye lotion

Still wouldn't be the eye lotion itself.

心通遠見他，

近故心自明。

然塗煉就葯，

見瓶不見葯。

प्रत्ययान्तरयुक्तस्य दर्शनात् स्वं प्रकाशते

सिद्धाञ्जनविधेर्दृष्टो घटो नैवाञ्जनं भवेत्

(25) How something is seen, heard, or known

Is not being nullified in this at all.

Here, (instead,) conceptual cognition (of it) as truly existent, which has become the cause for suffering,

Is being turned back. 

見聞與覺知，

於此不遮除。

此處所遮者，

苦因執諦實。

यथा दृष्टं श्रुतं ज्ञातं नैवेह प्रतिषिध्यते

सत्यतः कल्पना त्वत्र दुःखहेतुर्निवार्यते

(26) (Suppose you said,)

"An illusion (of an external object) isn't different from the mind;

Yet it can't be conceived as non-different."

(Well,) if it were a (truly existent) functional phenomenon, how could it not be different?

And if (you said) it's not different, it couldn't be a (truly existent) functional phenomenon.

幻境非心外，

亦非全無異。

若實怎非異？

非異則非實。

चित्तादन्या न माया चेन्नाप्यनन्येति कल्प्यते

वस्तु चेत् सा कथं नान्यानन्या चेन्नास्ति वस्तुतः

(27) Just as an illusion, though not truly existent, can still be seen,

So too is it with what does the seeing.

Suppose (you still objected,) "But, samsara must have a (truly existent) functional phenomenon as its support;

Otherwise, it would be like space."

幻境非實有，

能見心亦然。

輪迴依實法，

否則如虛空。

असत्यपि यथा माया दृश्या द्रष्टृ तथा मनः

वस्त्वाश्रयश्चेत् संसारः सो ऽन्यथाकाशवद्भवेत्

(28) (Well,) how could a non-phenomenon come to have a function

Through its being supported on (a truly existent) functional one?

And the mind you (asserted) would get (reduced, in fact,)

To something existing alone by itself, accompanied by nothing.

無實若依實，

云何有作用？

汝心無助緣，

應成獨一體。

वस्त्वाश्रयेणाभावस्य क्रियावत्त्वं कथं भवेत्

असत्सहायमेकं हि चित्तमापद्यते तव

(29) And when the mind would be (naturally) free of cognized objects,

Then everyone would be a Thusly Gone (Buddha).

And if that were the case, what benefit would there be

In conceiving of mind-only?

若心離所取，

眾皆成如來。

施設唯識義，

究竟有何德？

ग्राह्यमुक्तं यदा चित्तं तदा सर्वे तथागताः

एवं च को गुणो लब्धश्चित्तमात्रे ऽपि कल्पिते

(30) (Suppose you asked,)

"Even upon knowing the similarity (of things) with illusion,

How does disturbing emotion turn back,

When it's the case that lust for an illusory woman

Can arise even in the one who conjured her?"

雖知法如幻，

豈能除煩惱？

如彼幻變師，

亦貪所變女。

मायोपमत्वे ऽपि ज्ञाते कथं क्लेशो निवर्तते

यदा मायास्त्रियां रागस्तत्कर्तुरपि जायते

(31) (Well, that happens because) the conjurer hasn't rid himself yet

Of the habit for disturbing emotion toward knowable things,

And so, when he sees her,

His habit for voidness is still weak in force.

幻師於所知，

未斷煩惱習，

空性習氣弱，

故見猶生貪。

अप्रहीणा हि तत्कर्तुर्ज्ञेयसंक्लेशवासना

तद्दृष्टिकाले तस्यातो दुर्बला शून्यवासना

(32) However, by habituating himself to the habit of voidness,

He'll rid himself of the habit of (cognizing) phenomena (as truly existent).

Then, by habituating himself with "not existing at all,"

He'll later come to rid himself even of (cognizing) that.

若久修空性，

必斷實有習。

修空亦非實，

復斷空性執。

शून्यतावासनाधानाद्धीयते भाववासना

किंचिन्नास्तीति चाभ्यासात् सापि पश्चात् प्रहीयते

(33) When a (truly existent) functional phenomenon, which is conceived as "not existing,"

Is no longer taken as the mental aim;

Then lacking a support, how can the nonfunctional phenomenon (of its non-true existence)

Remain before the dualistic mind?

觀法無諦實，

不得諦實法。

無實離所依，

彼豈住心前？

यदा न लभ्यते भावो यो नास्तीति प्रकल्प्यते

तदा निराश्रयो ऽभावः कथं तिष्ठेन्मतेः पुरः

(34) When neither a (truly existent) functional phenomenon nor the nonfunctional one (of its non-true existence)

Remains before the dualistic mind,

Then since the other alternatives cannot be the case,

There's full pacification into (a state) without mental aim (at the impossible).

若實無實法，

悉不住心前，

彼時無餘相，

無緣最寂滅。

यदा न भावो नाभावो मतेः संतिष्ठते पुरः

तदान्यगत्यभावेन निरालम्बा प्रशाम्यते

(35) (Then,) just as a wish-fulfilling gem

And a wish-granting tree fulfill all wishes;

Likewise, through the power of disciples to be tamed and of prayers,

The Enlightening Form of a Triumphant One appears.

摩尼如意樹，

無心能滿願；

因福與宿願，

諸佛亦現身。

चिन्तामणिः कल्पतरुर्यथेच्छापरिपूरणः

विनेयप्रणिधानाभ्यां जिनबिम्बं तथेक्ष्यते

(36) For example, just as when a garudika healer has passed away

After actualizing a wooden healing post,

It still can pacify poison and the like,

Even when a long time's expired since his passing;

如人修鵬塔，

塔成彼即逝。

雖逝經久遠，

滅毒用猶存。

यथा गारुडिकः स्तम्भं साधयित्वा विनश्यति

स तस्मिंश्चिरनष्टे ऽपि विषादीनुपशामयेत्

(37) So too, when a bodhisattva has passed into nirvana,

After actualizing the healing-post (body) of a Triumphant One

In accord with bodhisattva behavior,

It still can perform all that's to be done.

隨修菩提行，

圓成正覺塔。

菩薩雖入滅，

能成眾利益。

बोधिचर्यानुरूप्येण जिनस्तम्भो ऽपि साधितः

करोति सर्वकार्याणि बोधिसत्त्वे ऽपि निर्वृते

(38) (Suppose you asked,)

"How can offerings made to something lacking a mind have results?"

(Well,) why? Because whether he's still here

Or has already passed into nirvana,

It's been proclaimed as being the same.

供佛無心物，

云何能得果？

供奉今昔佛，

經說福等故。

अचित्तके कृता पूजा कथं फलवती भवेत्

तुल्यैव पठ्यते यस्मात्तिष्ठतो निर्वृतस्य च

(39) According to scriptural authority, results are there,

Whether from the surface (viewpoint) or that of actuality.

It's like, for example, how (you'd say that offerings made)

To a truly existent Buddha has results.

供以真俗心，

經說皆獲福。

如供實有佛，

能得果報然。

आगमाच्च फलं तत्र संवृत्या तत्त्वतो ऽपि वा

सत्यबुद्धे कृता पूजा सफलेति कथं यथा

(40) (Suppose, like the Hinayanists, you then objected,)

"But, since liberation comes from seeing the (four noble) truths,

What's the use of seeing voidness?"

(Well,) why? Because from scriptural authority it's been proclaimed

That without this path, there's no purified state.

見諦則解脫，

何需見空性？

《般若經》中說：

無慧無菩提。

सत्यदर्शनतो मुक्तिः शून्यतादर्शनेन किम्

न विनानेन मार्गेण बोधिरित्यागमो यतः

(41) Suppose (you then objected,)

"But, Mahayana's not established (as valid)!"

(Well,) how can your scriptures be established?

(If you answered,) "Because they're established for both parties."

(Well,) they weren't established for you from the start.

大乘若不成，

汝教云何成？

二皆許此故。

汝初亦不許。

नन्वसिद्धं महायानं कथं सिद्धस्त्वदागमः

यस्मादुभयसिद्धो ऽसौ न सिद्धो ऽसौ तवादितः

(42) Any criterion that would give confidence in them

Would equally (apply) to the Mahayana ones too.

And if acceptance by two different parties could make something true,

Then the Vedas and so on would also become true.

依何信彼典，

大乘亦復然。

二許若成真，

《吠陀》亦成真。

यत्प्रत्यया च तत्रास्था महायाने ऽपि तां कुरु

अन्योभयेष्टसत्यत्वे वेदादेरपि सत्यता

(43) Suppose (you argued),

"It's because the Mahayana ones are disputed."

(Well,) because (your) scriptures are disputed by non-Buddhists

And some other (sections within your) scriptures by yourselves and others,

They'd have to be discarded (too).

小諍大乘故。

外道於阿含，

自他於他教，

互諍悉應舍。

सविवादं महायानमिति चेदागमं त्यज

तीर्थिकैः सविवादत्वात् स्वैः परैश्चागमान्तरम्

(44) (Suppose you said,)

"But the teachings (of the four noble truths) are the root of the (absolute) monkhood (of arhats)."

(Well,) even (absolute) monkhood itself is on difficult grounds,

(Since) the nirvana of a mind still aimed (at the impossible)

Is on difficult grounds.

若語入經藏，

即許為佛說，

三藏大乘教，

云何汝不許？

शासनं भिक्षुतामूलं भिक्षुतैव च दुःखिता

सावलम्बनचित्तानां निर्वाणमपि दुःस्थितम्

(45) (Suppose you replied,)

"But they've become liberated, because they've rid themselves of disturbing emotion."

(Well,) that would need to have happened immediately upon that;

However, it's seen that despite (their) lacking disturbing emotion,

They're still under the power of karma.

若因不解一，

一切皆有過，

則當以一同，

一切成佛說。

क्लेशप्रहाणान्मुक्तिश्चेत् तदनन्तरमस्तु सा

दृष्टं च तेषु सामर्थ्यं निःक्लेशस्यापि कर्मणः

(46) Suppose (you then said),

"But it's definite that they don't have, still to some extent,

Craving (as a condition) for obtaining (rebirth)."

(Well,) why couldn't it be that a craving that's not with disturbing emotion

(Is still existing in them,) while still with bewilderment about all?

諸聖大迦葉，

佛語未盡測，

誰因汝不解，

廢持大乘教？

तृष्णा तावदुपादानं नास्ति चेत् संप्रधार्यते

किमक्लिष्टापि तृष्णैषां नास्ति संमोहवत् सती

(47) Through the circumstance of feeling, there's craving,

And feeling still exists in them as well.

So a mind still having an aim (at the impossible)

Will come to be settled on one or another.

若僧為教本，

僧亦難安住。

心有所緣者，

亦難住涅槃。

वेदनाप्रत्यया तृष्णा वेदनैषां च विद्यते

सालम्बनेन चित्तेन स्थातव्यं यत्र तत्र वा

(48) A mind that's parted from voidness

May block (it), but it'll arise once again,

As with a trance that lacks distinguishing.

Therefore, one needs to meditate on voidness.

斷惑若即脫，

彼無間應爾。

彼等雖無惑，

猶見業功能。

विना शून्यतया चित्तं बद्धमुत्पद्यते पुनः

यथासंज्ञिसमापत्तौ भावयेत्तेन शून्यताम्

(49) (So again,) if you accept as spoken by the Buddha

Any speech that's made it down into the sutras,

Then why not accept the Mahayana, which, for the most part,

Are equivalent to (your) sutras?

若謂無愛取，

故定無後有。

此非染污愛，

如痴云何無？

यत्सूत्रे ऽवतरेद्वाक्यं तच्चेद्बुद्धोक्तमिष्यते

महायानं भवत्सूत्रैः प्रायस्तुल्यं न किं मतम्

(50) If, because of one exception,

All would become corrupt;

Then why, because of one equivalence to (your) sutras,

Wouldn't all have been spoken by the Buddha?

因受緣生愛。

彼等仍有受，

心識有所緣，

受仍住其中。

एकेनागम्यमानेन सकलं यदि दोषवत्

एकेन सूत्रतुल्येन किं न सर्वं जिनोदितम्

(51) And who would consider unacceptable

Some speech, the depths of which

(Even) Mahakashyapa and the like couldn't fathom,

(Simply) because you can't understand it?

若無空性心，

暫滅惑復生，

猶如無想定，

故應修空性。

महाकाश्यपमुख्यैश्च यद्वाक्यं नावगाह्यते

तत्त्वयानवबुद्धत्वादग्राह्यं कः करिष्यति

(52) (After all,) the fruit of (realizing) voidness is this:

Through freedom from the extremes of attachment and fear,

Being able to stay in samsara

For the sake of those suffering from being bewildered.

為度愚苦眾，

菩薩離貪懼，

悲智住輪迴，

此即悟空果。

सक्तित्रासात्त्वनिर्मुक्त्या संसारे सिध्यति स्थितिः

मोहेन दुःखिनामर्थे शून्यताया इदं फलम्

(53) As it's like this, derision's improper

In the direction of voidness.

Therefore, without indecisively wavering,

Meditate, please, on voidness.

不應妄破除，

如上空性理。

切莫心生疑，

如理修空性。

तदेवं शून्यतापक्षे दूषणं नोपपद्यते

तस्मान्निर्विचिकित्सेन भावनीयैव शून्यता

(54) Voidness is the opponent for the darkness

Of the emotional and cognitive obscurations;

(So) how can someone wishing for omniscience quickly

Not meditate on it?

空性能對治，

煩惱所知障，

欲速成佛者，

何不修空性？

क्लेशज्ञेयावृतितमः प्रतिपक्षो हि शून्यता

शीघ्रं सर्वज्ञताकामो न भावयति तां कथम्

(55) (Cognizing) phenomena (as truly existent) gives rise to suffering:

Generate fear for that.

But (realizing) voidness pacifies suffering:

So why does fear generate for that?

執實能生苦，

於彼應生懼；

悟空能息苦，

云何畏空性？

यद्दुःखजननं वस्तु त्रासस्तस्मात् प्रजायताम्

शून्यता दुःखशमनी ततः किं जायते भयम्

(56) (Go ahead and) be afraid of whatever,

If there were something called a "me";

But as there's nothing that is a "me,"

Then whose fear will it be?

實我若稍存，

於物則有懼；

既無少分我，

誰復生畏懼？

यतस्ततो वास्तु भयं यद्यहं नाम किंचन

अहमेव न किंचिच्चेद् भयं कस्य भविष्यति

(57) Teeth, hair, or nails are not a "me";

Nor am "I" bones or blood.

("I'm") neither mucous nor phlegm;

And nor am "I" lymph or pus.

齒髮甲非我，

我非骨及血，

非涎非鼻涕、

非膿非膽汁。

दन्तकेशनखा नाहं नास्थि नाप्यस्मि शोणितम्

न शिंघानं न च श्लेष्मा न पूयं लसिकापि वा

(58) "I" am not fat or sweat;

Nor am "I" even lungs or a liver.

"I'm" not any of the other inner organs;

Nor am "I" feces or urine.

非脂亦非汗，

非肺亦非肝，

我非余內臟，

亦非屎與尿。

नाहं वसा न च स्वेदो न मेदो ऽन्त्राणि नाप्यहम्

न चाहमन्त्रनिर्गुण्डी गूथमूत्रमहं न च

(59) Flesh or skin is not a "me";

Nor am "I" temperature or energy-wind.

In no way am "I" ever a bodily hole,

Nor are the six types of consciousness a "me."

肉與皮非我，

脈氣熱非我，

百竅亦復然，

六識皆非我。

नाहं मांसं न च स्नायुर्नोष्मा वायुरहं न च

न च छिद्राण्यहं नापि षड्विज्ञानानि सर्वथा

(60) And if (a person) were a permanent cognizer (as Samkhya asserts, and) of a sound,

The sound would be cognized all of the time.

But when bereft of something it cognizes, what does it know,

By means of which it could be called a cognizer?

聲識若是常，

一切時應聞．

若無所知聲，

何理謂識聲？

शब्दज्ञानं यदि तदा शब्दो गृह्येत सर्वदा

ज्ञेयं विना तु किं वेत्ति येन ज्ञानं निरुच्यते

(61) If it could be a cognizer without cognizing (something),

Then absurdly a stick would also be a cognizer.

Therefore, it's certain that without something nearby that it's cognizing,

It can't be a cognition.

無識若能知，

則樹亦應知．

是故定應解：

無境則無知。

अजानानं यदि ज्ञानं काष्ठं ज्ञानं प्रसज्यते

तेनासंनिहितज्ञेयं ज्ञानं नास्तीति निश्चयः

(62) Suppose (you said),

"It itself is then cognizing a sight."

(Well,) why doesn't it also hear at that time?

If (you answered), "Because the sound's not nearby,"

(Well,) then it's no longer a cognizer of it.

若謂彼知色，

彼時何不聞？

若謂聲不近，

則知識亦無。

तदेव रूपं जानाति तदा किं न शृणोत्यपि

शब्दस्यासंनिधानाच्चेत्ततस्तज्ज्ञानमप्यसत्

(63) How can something having the nature of the cognizer of a sound

Become the cognizer of a sight?

One can be labeled a father and a son,

But not as his absolute nature.

聞聲自性者，

云何成眼識？

一人成父子，

假名非真實。

शब्दग्रहणरूपं यत्तद्रूपग्रहणं कथम्

एकः पिता च पुत्रश्च कल्प्यते न तु तत्त्वतः

(64) And it's like this (because) sattva, rajas, and tamas (as the absolute nature of both a sound and a sight)

Are neither a son, nor are they a father;

(And because) that (cognizer of a sight) has never been seen

With a fundamental nature connected with a cognizer of a sound.

憂喜暗三德，

非子亦非父。

彼無聞聲性，

不見彼性故。

सत्त्वं रजस्तमो वापि न पुत्रो न पिता यतः

शब्दग्रहणयुक्तस्तु स्वभावस्तस्य नेक्ष्यते

(65) (Suppose you persisted,)

"Like a dancer, it's still itself, but seen with another mode (of guise)."

(Well then,) it wouldn't be static.

And suppose (you clarified), "It's still itself, but (its fundamental nature) is in another mode."

(Well then,) its oneness is one without any precedent.

如伎異狀見。

是識即非常。

謂異樣一體，

彼一未曾有。

तदेवान्येन रूपेण नटवत्सो ऽप्यशाश्वतः

स एवान्यस्वभावश्चेदपूर्वेयं तदेकता

(66) Suppose (you explained),

"But its assorted modes (of guise) are not true,"

Then describe, please, its own (innate) natural (guise).

Suppose (you answered,) "It's being a cognizer."

(Well then), absurdly it would follow that all persons are one.

異樣若非真，

自性復為何？

若謂即是識，

眾生將成一。

अन्यद्रूपमसत्यं चेन्निजं तद्रूपमुच्यताम्

ज्ञानता चेत्ततः सर्वपुंसामैक्यं प्रसज्यते

(67) (Further,) what has intention and what lacks intention - those two would, in fact, become one thing,

Because their existence is the same.

And, if individualities were contrary to fact,

Then what could be their shared support?

心無心亦一，

同為常有故。

差殊成妄時，

何為共同依？

चेतनाचेतने चैक्यं तयोर्येनास्तिता समा

विशेषश्च यदा मिथ्या कः सादृश्याश्रयस्तदा

(68) Furthermore, something lacking intention cannot be a self, (as Nyaya-Vaisheshika asserts),

Because of its nature of lack of intention, just like a vase and such things.

Now (suppose you claimed), "It's cognizant because of a conjunction with an intention,"

Then it absurdly follows that (this) noncognizant (self) has perished.

無心亦非我，

無心則如瓶。

謂合有心故，

知成無知滅。

अचेतनश्च नैवाहमचैतन्यात्पटादिवत्

अथ ज्ञश्चेतनायोगादज्ञो नष्टः प्रसज्यते

(69) And if the self were (in fact) unchanging,

What could have been done to it through (a connection with) an intention?

(Moreover,) space is noncognizant and inert like that,

So, it (as well) could become a self.

若我無變異，

心於彼何用？

無知復無用，

虛空亦成我。

अथाविकृत एवात्मा चैतन्येनास्य किं कृतम्

अज्ञस्य निष्क्रियस्यैवमाकाशस्यात्मता मता

(70) Suppose (you then objected),

"But, without the (true) existence of a (static) self,

The connection between behavioral cause and effect would be unreasonable,

Since, if it perished after having done an action,

Then whose action would it have been?"

若我非實有，

業果系非理。

已作我既滅，

誰復受業報？

न कर्मफलसंबन्धो युक्तश्चेदात्मना विना

कर्म कृत्वा विनष्टे हि फलं कस्य भविष्यति

(71) (Well,) since it's established for both of us

That the action and result have a different basis,

And that the self hasn't an active role in this,

Isn't it useless to debate on this (point)?

作者受者異，

報時作者亡。

汝我若共許，

諍此有何義？

द्वयोरप्यावयोः सिद्धे भिन्नाधारे क्रियाफले

निर्व्यापारश्च तत्रात्मेत्यत्र वादो वृथा ननु

(72) "Someone providing a causal (action) and conjoined with its result" -

This has never been seen as an existent thing.

It's in reliance on the unity of a continuum that it is taught,

"(Only) the agent can be the experiencer (of the results)."

因時見有果，

此見不可能。

依一相續故，

佛說作者受。

हेतुमान् फलयोगीति दृश्यते नैष संभवः

संतानस्यैक्यमाश्रित्य कर्ता भोक्तेति देशितम्

(73) The already-passed and the not-yet-arisen minds

Are not the self, since they don't exist (now).

And well, if the (presently) arising mind were the self,

When it perishes, there would, in fact, be no self!

過去未來心，

俱無故非我。

今心若是我，

彼滅則我亡。

अतीतानागतं चित्तं नाहं तद्धि न विद्यते

अथोत्पन्नमहं चित्तं नष्टे ऽस्मिन्नास्त्यहं पुनः

(74) For example, when the trunk of a plantain tree

Is split into parts, nothing (is found);

Likewise, when searched for with discerning analysis,

A self isn't (found as) an absolute thing.

猶如芭蕉樹，

剝析無所有。

如是以慧觀，

覓我見非實。

यथैव कदलीस्तम्भो न कश्चिद् भागशः कृतः

तथाहमप्यसद्भूतो मृग्यमाणो विचारतः

(75) (Suppose) you asked,

"If a limited being didn't exist,

Toward whom could there be compassion?"

(Well,) it would be toward one who was conceptually labeled by a bewildered (mind)

That had committed itself to the goal of its fruit.

有情若非有，

於誰起悲愍？

立誓成佛者，

因痴虛設有。

यदि सत्त्वो न विद्येत कस्योपरि कृपेति चेत्

कार्यार्थमभ्युपेतेन यो मोहेन प्रकल्पितः

(76) (Suppose you then asked,)

"Whose fruit would it be, if there were no limited being?"

(Well,) that's true. It's accepted that (the wish) is due to bewilderment;

(Yet,) for the sake of pacifying suffering completely,

Bewilderment about the fruit is not turned back.

無人誰得果？

許由痴心得。

為息眾生苦，

不應除此痴。

कार्यं कस्य न चेत्सत्त्वः सत्यमीहा तु मोहतः

दुःखव्युपशमार्थं तु कार्यमोहो न वार्यते

(77) But because of bewilderment about the self,

The cause of suffering, self-inflation, increases.

(Suppose) you said, "But, there's no turning back from that."

(Well,) best is meditation on the lack of an (impossible) self.

我慢痛苦因，

惑我得增長。

謂慢不能除；

修無我最勝。

दुःखहेतुरहंकार आत्ममोहात्तु वर्धते

ततो ऽपि न निवर्त्यश्चेत् वरं नैरात्म्यभावना

(78) A body is neither the feet nor the calves;

Nor is a body the thighs or the hips.

The belly or the back is not a body;

Neither is a body the chest or the arms.

身非足小腿，

腿臀亦非身，

腹背及胸肩，

彼等復非身。

कायो न पादौ न जङ्घा नोरू कायः कटिर्न च

नोदरं नाप्ययं पृष्ठं नोरो बाहू न चापि सः

(79) The sides of the torso or the hands are not a body;

Nor is a body the armpits or the shoulders.

The inner organs as well are not it;

And neither is a body the head or also the neck.

So what (alternative) could a body be here?

側肋手非身，

腋窩肩非身，

內臟頭與頸，

彼等皆非身，

此中孰為身？

न हस्तौ नाप्ययं पार्श्वौ न कक्षौ नांसलक्षणः

न ग्रीवा न शिरः कायः कायो ऽत्र कतरः पुनः

(80) If this body were located

With a portion in all of these;

Then, although the parts are located in the parts,

Where is it itself located?

若身遍散住，

一切諸肢分，

分復住自分，

身應住何處？

यदि सर्वेषु कायो ऽथमेकदेशेन वर्तते

अंशा अंशेषु वर्तन्ते स च कुत्र स्वयं स्थितः

(81) And if a body itself, in its entirety,

Were located (everywhere), in the hands and so forth,

There would be as many bodies

As there were hands and so on.

若謂吾一身，

分住手等分；

則盡手等數，

應成等數身。

सर्वात्मना चेत्सर्वत्र स्थितः कायः करादिषु

कायास्तावन्त एव स्युर्यावन्तस्ते करादयः

(82) As a body's not (located) outside or inside (the parts),

How could a body exist in terms of the hands and so forth (as their possessor)?

As it's also not (a possessor) separate from the hands and so on,

How could it possibly be (truly) existent?

內外若無身，

云何手有身？

手等外無他，

云何有彼身？

नैवान्तर्न बहिः कायः कथं कायः करादिषु

करादिभ्यः पृथग् नास्ति कथं नु खलु विद्यते

(83) Thus, a body's not (truly) existent;

But, because of bewilderment in terms of the hands and so forth,

A dualistic mind arises of a body.

It's like the dualistic mind that arises of a man in terms of a scarecrow,

By its feature of having been set up in its shape.

無身因愚迷，

於手生身覺。

如因石狀殊，

誤彼為真人。

तन्नास्ति कायो मोहात्तु कायबुद्धिः करादिषु

संनिवेशविशेषेण स्थानौ पुरुषबुद्धिवत्

(84) For as long as the conditions are assembled,

The body (of a scarecrow) is seen as a man;

Likewise, for as long as there are hands and so on,

A body is seen in terms of them.

眾緣聚合時，

見石狀似人。

如是於手等，

亦見實有身。

यावत्प्रत्ययसामग्री तावत्कायः पुमानिव

एवं करादौ सा यावत्तावत्कायो ऽत्र दृश्यते

(85) Similarly, because of its being a composite of fingers,

Which one could be a hand?

(The same with) that (finger) as well, because of its being a composite of joints;

And a joint as well, from the breakdown into its own parts;

手復指聚故，

理當成何物？

能聚由聚成，

聚者猶可分。

एवमङ्गुलिपुञ्जत्वात्पादो ऽपि कतरो भवेत्

सो ऽपि पर्वसमूहत्वात्पर्वापि स्वांशभेदतः

(86) And a part as well, through a breakdown into particles;

And that particle as well, because of directional divisions;

And a directional division too, because of its being without (findable) parts, like space.

Consequently, even particles don't (truly) exist.

分復析為塵，

塵析為方分，

方分離部分，

如空無微塵。

अंशा अप्यणुभेदेन सो ऽप्यणुर्दिग्विभागतः

दिग्विभागो निरंशत्वादाकाशं तेन नास्त्यणुः

(87) Therefore, what discerning (person) would be attached

To a bodily form, which is like a dream?

And when, like that, a body doesn't (truly) exist,

Then what's a male and what's a female?

是故聰智者，

誰貪如夢身？

如是身若無，

豈貪男女相？

एवं स्वप्नोपमे रूपे को रज्येत विचारकः

कायश्चैवं यदा नास्ति तदा का स्त्री पुमांश्च कः

(88) If suffering existed by absolute nature,

How is it that it doesn't undermine (experiencing) pleasures?

And if happiness, for those tormented by grief and the like, were a tasty dish or such things,

Why doesn't it make them delighted?

苦性若實有，

何不損極樂？

樂實則甘等，

何不解憂苦？

यद्यस्ति दुःखं तत्त्वेन प्रहृष्टान् किं न बाधते

शोकाद्यार्ताय मृष्टादि सुखं चेत्किं न रोचते

(89) Suppose (you answered),

"It's not experienced, because it's outshone

By something that's more intense."

(Well,) how can something not in the nature of an experience

Still be something (in the category of) a feeling?

若謂苦強故，

不覺彼樂受。

既非領納性，

云何可謂受？

बलीयसाभिभूतत्वाद्यदि तन्नानुभूयते

वेदनात्वं कथं तस्य यस्य नानुभवात्मता

(90) Suppose (you replied,)

"Couldn't it still be suffering, but in a subtle state,

When its gross (level) has been displaced?"

(Well, then) you could (also) say that, other than that, it was a slight (level of) joy,

And then, (absurdly,) its subtle state would be one of that too.

若謂有微苦，

豈非已除苦？

謂彼即余樂，

微苦豈非樂？

अस्ति सूक्ष्मतया दुःखं स्थौल्यं तस्य हृतं ननु

तुष्टिमात्राऽपरा चेत्स्यात्तस्मात्साप्यस्य सूक्ष्मता

(91) Suppose (you said),

"But, at the arising of incompatible conditions,

There's the non-arising of suffering."

(Well,) doesn't that (come down to) establishing that

A feeling is (merely) something hung on by a conceptual thought?

倘因逆緣故，

苦受不得生。

此豈非成立：

分別受是執？

विरुद्धप्रत्ययोत्पत्तौ दुःखस्यानुदयो यदि

कल्पनाभिनिवेशो हि वेदनेत्यागतं ननु

(92) Because of just that, this discerning analysis

Needs to be meditated as its opponent;

The stability of mind that grows from the field of examining

Is the food of the yogis.

故應修空觀，

對治實有執。

觀慧良田中，

能長瑜伽食。

अतएव विचारो ऽयं प्रतिपक्षो ऽस्य भाव्यते

विकल्पक्षेत्रसंभूतध्यानाहारा हि योगिनः

(93) If there's a gap between a cognitive sensor and its object;

Where could the meeting of the two occur?

And if there's no gap, they'd be a fused unity,

So the meeting would be of what with what?

根境若間隔，

彼二怎會遇？

無隔二成一，

誰復遇於誰？

सान्तराविन्द्रियार्थौ चेत्संसर्गः कुत एतयोः

निरन्तरत्वे ऽप्येकत्वं कस्य केनास्तु संगतिः

(94) Yet, there can't be penetration of a particle by a particle:

They've no empty space and they're of uniform (size).

When there's no penetration, there's no commingling;

And when there's no commingling, there's no meeting.

塵塵不相入，

無間等大故。

不入則無合，

無合則不遇。

नाणोरणौ प्रवेशो ऽस्ति निराकाशः समश्च सः

अप्रवेशे न मिश्रत्वममिश्रत्वे न संगतिः

(95) Moreover, for something that's partless,

How could what might be called "a meeting" properly take place?

If a meeting and being partless can be observed (together),

Then show it, please!

無分而能遇，

云何有此理？

若見請示我，

無分相遇塵。

निरंशस्य च संसर्गः कथं नामोपपद्यते

संसर्गे च निरंशत्वं यदि दृष्टं निदर्शय

(96) For a consciousness, which is immaterial,

A meeting is an impossibility;

(That's so) for a composite as well, because it doesn't truly exist,

As has been discerningly analyzed before.

意識無色身，

遇境不應理。

聚亦無實故，

如前應觀察。

विज्ञानस्य त्वमूर्तस्य संसर्गो नैव युज्यते

समूहस्याप्यवस्तुत्वाद्यथा पूर्वं विचारितम्

(97) And so, like that, when contact doesn't truly exist,

From what does a feeling arise?

For what reason, (then,) is there (all) this trouble?

For whom and from what could injury come?

若觸非真有，

則受從何生？

何故逐塵勞？

何苦傷何人？

तदेवं स्पर्शनाभावे वेदनासंभवः कुतः

किमर्थमयमायासः बाधा कस्य कुतो भवेत्

(98) And when there's no (truly existent) one that feels,

And feeling, as well, doesn't (truly) exist,

Then seeing this situation, O craving,

Why don't you turn yourself back?

若見無受者，

亦無實領受，

見此實性已，

云何愛不滅？

यदा न वेदकः कश्चिद्वेदना च न विद्यते

तदावस्थामिमां दृष्ट्वा तृष्णे किं न विदीर्यसे

(99) Nevertheless, (something) can be seen and also be touched

Through its having a nature similar to a dream or an illusion.

(Further,) a feeling cannot be perceived by a mind

From arising simultaneously with it.

所見或所觸，

性皆如夢幻。

與心俱生故，

受非心能見。

दृश्यते स्पृश्यते चापि स्वप्नमायोपमात्मना

चित्तेन सहजातत्वाद्वेदना तेन नेक्ष्यते

(100) And, though a previous one can be remembered by one that arises later,

It can't be experienced (by it).

(In short, a feeling) can't experience it's own self

And it can't be experienced by something else.

后念唯能憶，

非能受前心。

不能自領納，

亦非它能受。

पूर्वं पश्चाच्च जातेन स्मर्यते नानुभूयते

स्वात्मानं नानुभवति न चान्येनानुभूयते

(101) As there's no (truly existent) one that feels,

Then, feeling cannot exist absolutely.

So, in this bundle that lacks a true self,

Who can be injured by it?

畢竟無受者，

故受非真有。

誰言此幻受，

能害無我聚？

न चास्ति वेदकः कश्चिद्वेदनातो न तत्त्वतः

निरात्मके कलापे ऽस्मिन् क एव बाध्यते ऽनया

(102) A mind's not situated in cognitive sensors, in sights and so on,

Nor in the space in between;

A mind isn't inside, nor is it outside,

Nor can it be found, in fact, anywhere else.

意不住諸根，

不住色與中，

不住內或外，

余處亦不得。

नेन्द्रियेषु न रूपादौ नान्तराले मनः स्थितम्

नाप्यन्तर्न बहिश्चित्तमन्यत्रापि न लभ्यते

(103) Something that isn't the body nor something else,

Neither commingled, nor separate in any way,

Isn't anything (truly existent) at all. Because of that,

Limited beings are by nature released in parinirvana.

非身非異身，

非合亦非離，

無少實性故；

有情性涅槃。

यन्न काये न चान्यत्र न मिश्रं न पृथक् क्वचित्

तन्न किंचिदतः सत्त्वाः प्रकृत्या परिनिर्वृताः

(104) If the cognition (of something) were prior to what it cognized,

Then what's it to be aimed at for its arising (to occur)?

And if a cognition were simultaneous with what it cognized,

(Still,) what's it to be aimed at for its arising (to occur)?

離境先有識，

緣何而生識？

識境若同時，

已生何待緣？

ज्ञेयात्पूर्वं यदि ज्ञानं किमालम्ब्यास्य संभवः

ज्ञेयेन सह चेज्ज्ञानं किमालम्ब्यास्य संभवः

(105) Yet, if it occurred after what it cognized,

Then from what did the cognition (of it) arise?

Similarly, it can't be determined that there's

A (truly existent) arising of any phenomenon.

識若后境起，

緣何而得生？

故應不能知：

諸法實有生。

अथ ज्ञेयाद्भवेत्पश्चात्तदा ज्ञानं कुतो भवेत्

एवं च सर्वधर्माणामुत्पत्तिर्नावसीयते

(106) (Suppose you objected,)

"But if it were like that, then surface (true) things wouldn't exist (at all);

And so how, in this case, could there be the two truths?

Moreover, if they were being (projected) by others (as veiling) surface (truths),

Then how could there be someone with a limited mind (unveiled and) released with nirvana?"

若無世俗諦，

云何有二諦？

世俗若因他，

有情豈涅槃？

यद्येवं संवृतिर्नास्ति ततः सत्यद्वयं कुतः

अथ साप्यन्यसंवृत्या स्यात्सत्त्वो निर्वृतः कुतः

(107) (Well,) this would be the deceptive conception of the limited minds of others,

But that isn't surface (truth) from our own (point of view).

What's ascertained afterwards, that (still) exists,

And if not, then surface truth turns out to be something that doesn't exist.

此由他分別，

彼非自世俗。

后認定則有，

否則無世俗。

परचित्तविकल्पो ऽसौ स्वसंवृत्या तु नास्ति सः

स पश्चान्नियतः सो ऽस्ति न चेन्नास्त्येव संवृतिः

(108) (And so,) what's conceptually examining and what's conceptually examined,

The two of them are (dependently) supported, one by the other.

And it's by being (dependently) supported by what's in accord with popular consensus,

That all analytical discernment is expressed.

分別所分別，

二者相依存。

是故諸觀察，

皆依世共稱。

कल्पना कल्पितं चेति द्वयमन्योन्यनिश्रितम्

यथाप्रसिद्धमाश्रित्य विचारः सर्व उच्यते

(109) But (suppose you objected),

"When one would need to analytically discern

With a discernment that which has analytically discerned,

Then there would be an infinite regress for that discernment as well,

Because of its need to be analytically discerned."

以析空性心，

究彼空性時，

若復究空智，

應成無窮過。

विचारितेन तु यदा विचारेण विचार्यते

तदानवस्था तस्यापि विचारस्य विचारणात्

(110) (Well,) when what's analytically discerned is being discerned,

A supporting (basis) for that discernment doesn't exist.

And because of its being without a supporting (basis), it doesn't arise:

That's called (its natural) release in nirvana.

悟明所析空，

理智無所依。

無依故不生，

說此即涅槃。

विचारिते विचार्ये तु विचारस्यास्ति नाश्रयः

निराश्रयत्वान्नोदेति तच्च निर्वाणमुच्यते

(111) And as for the likes of someone, for whom these two are truly existent,

He indeed is on very difficult grounds;

(Because,) if it's from the power of a cognition that an object's established,

Then, what supporting (basis) is there for (establishing) the true existence of the cognition?

心境實有宗，

理極難安立。

若境由識成，

依何立識有？

यस्य त्वेतद्द्वयं सत्यं स एवात्यन्तदुःस्थितः

यदि ज्ञानवशादर्थो ज्ञानास्तित्वे तु का गतिः

(112) And if it's from (the power of) what's cognized that a cognition is established,

Then, what support is there for (establishing) the true existence of what's cognized?

On the other hand, if their existence (is established) by the power of each other,

Then the non-true existence of both would in fact be the case.

若識由境成，

依何立所知？

心境相待有，

二者皆非實。

अथ ज्ञेयवशाज्ज्ञानं ज्ञेयास्तित्वे तु का गतिः

अथान्योन्यवशात्सत्त्वमभावः स्याद्द्वयोरपि

(113) (For example,) if, without a child, someone is not a father,

(Then,) from whom can it arise that someone is a child?

(Because,) in the absence of a child, there can be no father.

Similar to that, is the non-true existence of those two.

無子則無父，

無父誰生子？

父子相待有，

如是無心境。

पिता चेन्न विना पुत्रात्कुतः पुत्रस्य संभवः

पुत्राभावे पिता नास्ति तथा सत्त्वं तयोर्द्वयोः

(114) (Suppose you asked,)

"A sprout grows from a seed,

And just as (the true existence of) the seed is indicated by it,

Why, by the arising of a cognition from what's cognized,

Can't its true existence (also) be concluded?"

如芽從種生，

因芽知有種。

由境所生識，

何不知有境？

अङ्कुरो जायते बीजाद्बीजं तेनैव सूच्यते

ज्ञेयाज्ज्ञानेन जातेन तत्सत्ता किं न गम्यते

(115) (Well,) when it's from a cognition different from the sprout

That it can be concluded that a seed exists,

What can it be from, by means of which, the (true) existence

Of a cognition cognizing something it cognizes can be concluded?

由彼異芽識，

雖知有芽種，

然心了境時，

憑何知有識？

अङ्कुरादन्यतो ज्ञानाद्बीजमस्तीति गम्यते

ज्ञानास्तित्वं कुतो ज्ञातं ज्ञेयं यत्तेन गम्यते

(116) (Charvakas, please,) from straightforward cognition,

The common world, in fact, sees for itself everything causal.

(After all,) a diversity of (plants): lotus stalks and the like,

Grows by means of a diversity of causes.

世人亦能見，

一切能生因，

如蓮根莖等，

差別前因生。

लोकः प्रत्यक्षतस्तावत्सर्वं हेतुमुदीक्षते

पद्मनालादिभेदो हि हेतुभेदेन जायते

(117) Suppose (you asked),

"By what has the diversity of causes been made?"

(Well,) from a diversity of previous causes.

And (suppose you asked further), "Because of what does a cause have the ability to give rise to an effect?"

(Well,) it's from the power of previous causes.

誰作因差別？

由昔諸異因。

何故因生果？

從昔因力故。

किंकृतो हेतुभेदश्चेत्पूर्वहेतुप्रभेदतः

कस्माच्चेत्फलदो हेतुः पूर्वहेतुप्रभावतः

(118) If, (as Nyaya-Vaisheshika asserts,) the Powerful Lord Ishvara were the cause of the world,

So tell me, what is Ishvara in fact?

If you said, "The elements," then so be it,

But why (all) the fuss over merely a name?

自在天是因，

何為自在天？

雖許謂大種，

何必唯執名？

ईश्वरो जगतो हेतुः वद कस्तावदीश्वरः

भूतानि चेद्भवत्वेवं नाममात्रे ऽपि किं श्रमः

(119) However, earth and the rest are multipart,

Nonstatic, inert, and not divine;

They're things to be walked over and unclean.

So that can't be the Powerful Lord Ishvara.

無心大種眾，

非常亦非天，

不凈眾所踐，

定非自在天。

अपि त्वनेके ऽनित्याश्च निश्चेष्टा न च देवताः

लङ्घ्याश्चाशुचयश्चैव क्ष्मादयो न स ईश्वरः

(120) Ishvara can't be space, because that's inert;

He can't be the self, since that's been refuted before.

And even (if you said), "The nature of being a creator is in reference to something inconceivable,"

Well then, what's the use of talking about something that's inconceivable?

彼天非虛空，

非我前已破。

若謂非思議，

說彼有何義？

नाकाशमीशो ऽचेष्टत्वात् नात्मा पूर्वनिषेधतः

अचिन्त्यस्य च कर्तृत्वमप्यचिन्त्यं किमुच्यते

(121) And what could it be that he wished to create? The self?

Well, aren't that, the earth (element) and the rest,

And Ishvara supposed to be eternal by nature?

Moreover, the arising of cognition from cognizable objects 

何為所欲生？

我及自在天，

大種豈非常？

識從所知生，

तेन किं स्रष्टुमिष्टं च आत्मा चेत् नन्वसौ ध्रुवः

क्ष्मादिस्वभाव ईशश्च ज्ञानं ज्ञेयादनादि च

(122) Is without a beginning, as is happiness and suffering from karma.

So tell me, what's been created by him?

And if there's no beginning to the cause,

How could there be a first instance of its effect?

復緣無始業。

何為彼所生？

若謂因無始，

彼果豈有始？

कर्मणः सुखदुःखे च वद किं तेन विर्मितम्

हेतोरादिर्न चेदस्ति फलस्यादिः कुतो भवेत्

(123) And why doesn't he always create,

When he doesn't depend on anything else?

There's nothing else existing not created by him,

So what is it on which he depends (to create)?

彼既不依他，

何故不常作？

若皆彼所造，

則彼何所需？

कस्मात्सदा न कुरुते न हि सो ऽन्यमपेक्षते

तेनाकृतो ऽन्यो नास्त्येव तेनासौ किमपेक्षताम्

(124) If what he depends on is a gathering (of conditions),

(Then, again,) the Powerful Lord Ishvara would become not the cause:

(For,) when they're gathered, he'd lack the power not to create,

And in their absence, he'd lack the power to create.

若依緣聚生，

生因則非彼。

緣聚定緣生，

不聚無生力。

अपेक्षते चेत्सामग्रीं हेतुर्न पुनरीश्वरः

नाकर्तुमीशः सामग्र्यां न कर्तुं तदभावतः

(125) And if the Powerful Lord Ishvara must create when not wanting to,

It absurdly follows that he's under the power of something else.

And if it's when wanting to, he's under the power of want.

So where's (the power of) the Powerful Lord who's creating?

若非自在欲，

緣生依他力。

若因欲乃作，

何名自在天？

करोत्यनिच्छन्नीशश्चेत्परायत्तः प्रसज्यते

इच्छन्नपीच्छायत्तः स्यात् कुर्वतः कुत ईशता

(126) Those (Mimamsakas) who assert static particles (as the creator)

Have already been turned back before;

While the Samkhyas assert

Static primal matter as the cause of the world.

微塵萬法因，

於前已破訖。

常主眾生因，

數論師所許。

ये ऽपि नित्यानणूनाहुस्ते ऽपि पूर्वं निवारिताः

सांख्याः प्रधानमिच्छन्ति नित्यं लोकस्य कारणम्

(127) (For them,) the universal constituents,

Known as sattva/pleasure, rajas/pain, and tamas/neutral sensation,

Abiding not in imbalance are called primal matter;

(While their) imbalance is said to be the world.

喜樂憂與暗，

三德平衡狀，

說彼為主體；

失衡變眾生。

सत्त्वं रजस्तमश्चेति गुणा अविषमस्थिताः

प्रधानमिति कथ्यन्ते विषमैर्जगदुच्यते

(128) But it's illogical for a (partless) unity to be something threefold by nature;

And therefore, it doesn't exist.

Likewise, the universal constituents can't be (truly) existent,

Because each of them too has three aspects.

一體有三性，

非理故彼無。

如是德非有，

彼復各三故。

एकस्य त्रिस्वभावत्वमयुक्तं तेन नास्ति तत्

एवं गुणा न विद्यन्ते प्रत्येकं ते ऽपि हि त्रिधा

(129) And in the absence of the universal constituents,

The (true) existence of sound and the rest becomes very farfetched.

Moreover, it's impossible for pleasure and so on

To exist in non-conscious clothing and the likes.

若無此三德，

杳然不聞聲。

衣等無心故，

亦無苦樂受。

गुणाभावे च शब्दादेरस्तित्वमतिदूरतः

अचेतने च वस्त्रादौ सुखादेरप्यसंभवः

(130) Suppose (you said),

"Functional phenomena (exist) in the natural guise of their causes."

(Well,) haven't functional phenomena already been analyzed?

(In any case,) the causes, for you, are pleasure and so on themselves:

But cotton clothing and the likes don't arise from that at all.

謂法具因性，

豈非已究訖？

汝因具三德，

從彼不生布。

तद्धेतुरूपा भावाश्चेन्ननु भावा विचारिताः

सुखाद्येव च ते हेतुः न च तस्मात्पटादयः

(131) And, if pleasure and so on were to exist from cotton clothing and the likes,

Then from their absence, pleasure and so on wouldn't exist.

Moreover, a static state of pleasure and so on

Has never been focused upon.

若布生樂等，

無布則無樂。

故樂等常性，

畢竟不可得。

पटादेस्तु सुखादि स्यात्तदभावात्सुखाद्यसत्

सुखादीनां च नित्यत्वं कदाचिन्नोपलभ्यते

(132) If manifest pleasure and so on were (truly) existent (statically),

Why isn't (their) experience (always) perceived?

Suppose (you said,) "(The sensation) itself goes to a subtle (unmanifest) state."

(Well,) how can it be (both) gross and subtle?

樂等若恆存，

苦時怎無樂？

若謂樂衰減；

彼豈有強弱？

सत्यामेव सुखव्यक्तौ संवित्तिः किं न गृह्यते

तदेव सूक्ष्मतां याति स्थूलं सूक्ष्मं च तत्कथम्

(133) Since it would have become subtle (and unmanifest), after having left its gross (manifest) state,

Its gross and subtle states are nonstatic.

So why not accept the nonstaticness like that

Of all functional phenomena?

舍粗而變細，

彼樂應非常。

如是何不許：

一切法非常？

स्थौल्यं त्यक्त्वा भवेत्सूक्ष्ममनित्ये स्थौल्यसूक्ष्मते

सर्वस्य वस्तुनस्तद्वत्किं नानित्यत्वमिष्यते

(134) And if its gross (manifest) state were no different from pleasure (itself),

Then the nonstaticness of pleasure is obvious.

Suppose you asserted, "But something totally nonexistent (in the cause)

Couldn't be produced, because of its being nonexistent."

粗既不異樂，

顯然樂非常。

因位須許有，

無終不生故。

न स्थौल्यं चेत्सुखादन्यत् सुखस्यानित्यता स्फुटम्

नासदुत्पद्यते किंचिदसत्त्वादिति चेन्मतम्

(135) (Well,) then production of something nonexistent as a manifest (object)

Would be (the self-contradiction) into which you're positioned, although you don't want it.

And if the effect were positioned in the cause,

Then a consumer of food would be an eater of excrement!

顯果雖不許，

隱果仍許存。

因時若有果，

食成啖不凈。

व्यक्तस्यासत उत्पत्तिरकामस्यापि ते स्थिता

अन्नादो ऽमेध्यभक्षः स्यात् फलं हेतौ यदि स्थितम्

(136) And for the price of cotton clothing,

Cottonseed could be bought and worn (instead)!

Suppose (you said), "(Although) common people don't see (it), because of bewilderment,

Precisely that is the position (established) by (Kapila,) the Knower of Reality."

復應以布值，

購穿棉花種。

謂愚不見此，

然智所立言，

पटार्घेणैव कर्पासबीजं क्रीत्वा निवस्यताम्

मोहाच्चेन्नेक्षते लोकः तत्त्वज्ञस्यापि सा स्थितिः

(137) (Well,) cognition of that must (also) exist

In common people, so why isn't it seen?

Suppose (you answered,) "(That lies) in common people's Not being valid cognizers (for that)."

(Well,) what they see as manifest, then, would (also) not be true.

世間亦應知。

何故不見果？

世見若非量，

所見應失真。

लोकस्यापि च तज्ज्ञानमस्ति कस्मान्न पश्यति

लोकाप्रमाणतायां चेत् व्यक्तदर्शनमप्यसत्

(138) (Suppose you retorted),

"(But you too assert that) a valid cognizer (for the common world) is not a valid cognizer (for deepest truth).

And if that's the case, then wouldn't what was validly cognized by it (also) become false,

And therefore, in actuality, meditation on the voidness

(Of functional phenomena) by it become incorrect?" 

若量皆非量，

量果豈非假？

故汝修空性，

亦應成錯謬。

प्रमाणमप्रमाणं चेन्ननु तत्प्रमितं मृषा

तत्त्वतः शून्यता तस्माद्भावानां नोपपद्यते

(139) (Well, yes, but) when functional phenomena (labeled and) conceptually analyzed are not contacted,

The nonfunctional phenomenon of their (nontrue existence) would (also) not be grasped.

Therefore, concerning any truly existent functional phenomenon that's false,

The falsehood of the nonfunctional phenomenon of its nontrue existence would be obvious.

未辨假立實，

不識彼無實。

所破實既假，

無實定亦假。

कल्पितं भावमस्पृष्ट्वा तदभावो न गृह्यते

तस्माद्भावो मृषा यो हि तस्याभावः स्फुटं मृषा

(140) Thus, upon the death of a son in a dream,

The conceptual thought that he doesn't exist

Stops (the arising of) the conceptual thought

That he does exist, and yet it is false.

如人夢子死，

夢中知無子，

能遮有子想，

彼遮亦是假。

तस्मात्स्वप्ने सुते नष्टे स नास्तीति विकल्पना

तद्भावकल्पनोत्पादं विबध्नाति मृषा च सा

(141) Therefore, with discerning analysis like this,

Nothing exists that's from no cause at all,

Or that's sitting there, fixed in conditions,

Whether separate ones or combined.

如是究諸法，

則知非無因，

亦非住各別、

合集諸因緣；

तस्मादेवं विचारेण नास्ति किंचिदहेतुतः

न च व्यस्तसमस्तेषु प्रत्ययेषु व्यवस्थितम्

(142) In fact, nothing has come from something else;

And nothing remains, and nothing goes.

(So,) anything taken as truly existent by bewildered minds,

What difference does it have from an illusion?

亦非由他生，

非住非趨行。

愚痴所執諦，

何異幻化物？

अन्यतो नापि चायातं न तिष्ठति न गच्छति

मायातः को विशेषो ऽस्य यन्मूढैः सत्यतः कृतम्

(143) (So,) examine something emanated by illusion

And something emanated by causes:

Where does it come from?

Where does it go?

幻物及眾因，

所變諸事物，

應詳審觀彼，

何來何所之？

मायया निर्मितं यच्च हेतुभिर्यच्च निर्मितम्

आयाति तत्कुतः कुत्र याति चेति निरूप्यताम्

(144) How can there be true existence

In some virtual object like a reflection,

Which is seen (only) in conjunction with something (else)

And which doesn't exist when that's absent?

緣合見諸物，

無因則不見。

虛偽如影像，

彼中豈有真？

यदन्यसंनिधानेन दृष्टं न तदभावतः

प्रतिबिम्बसमे तस्मिन् कृत्रिमे सत्यता कथम्

(145) For a functional phenomenon that was (truly) existing,

What need would there be for a cause?

Then again, if something were (truly) not existing,

What need would there be for a cause?

若法已成有，

其因何所需？

若法本來無，

云何需彼因？

विद्यमानस्य भावस्य हेतुना किं प्रयोजनम्

अथाप्यविद्यमानो ऽसौ हेतुना किं प्रयोजनम्

(146) There can be no transformation of a non-phenomenon,

Even by means of a hundred million causes!

How can something in that state become a functional phenomenon?

But what else could come into functional existence?

縱以億萬因，

無不變成有。

無時怎成有？

成有者為何？

नाभावस्य विकारो ऽस्ति हेतुकोटिशतैरपि

तदवस्थः कथं भावः को वान्यो भावतां गतः

(147) If it isn't a functional phenomenon at the time of being a non-phenomenon,

When will it come to exist as a functional phenomenon?

But without its functional existence coming to arise,

It won't leave being a non-phenomenon.

無時若無有，

何時方成有？

於有未生時，

是猶未離無。

नाभावकाले भावश्चेत्कदा भावो भविष्यति

नाजातेन हि भावेन सो ऽभावो ऽपगमिष्यति

(148) Without leaving being a non-phenomenon,

No occasion will occur for its coming to exist as a functional phenomenon.

And a functional phenomenon cannot go to a state of nonfunctionality,

Because it would absurdly follow that it had a bipolar true nature.

倘若未離無，

則無生有時。

有亦不成無，

應成二性故。

न चानपगते ऽभावे भावावसरसंभवः

भावश्चाभावतां नैति द्विस्वभावप्रसङ्गतः

(149) In that way, as cessation doesn't (truly) exist,

And (the arising) of phenomena doesn't (truly) exist either,

Thus this entire world always has been

Non-truly arising and non-truly ceasing.

自性不成滅，

有法性亦無。

是故諸眾生，

畢竟不生滅。

एवं च न विरोधो ऽस्ति न च भावो ऽस्ति सर्वदा

अजातमनिरुद्धं च तस्मात्सर्वमिदं जगत्

(150) (Therefore,) wandering beings resemble a dream;

Upon discerning analysis, they're the same as a plantain tree.

Whether they're released with nirvana or not released,

There's no difference in their actual way of existing.

眾生如夢幻，

究時同芭蕉。

涅槃不涅槃，

其性悉無別。

स्वप्नोपमास्तु गतयो विचारे कदलीसमाः

निर्वृतानिर्वृतानां च विशेषो नास्ति वस्तुतः

(151) With all phenomena devoid in that way,

What is there that would've been received;

What is there that would've been taken away?

Who is there who'll become shown respect or contempt, and by whom?

故於諸空法，

何有得與失？

誰人恭敬我？

誰復輕蔑我？

एवं शून्येषु धर्मेषु किं लब्धं किं हृतं भवेत्

सत्कृतः परिभूतो वा केन कः संभविष्यति

(152) What is there, from which there's pleasure or pain?

What is there, to be disliked or liked?

What craving is there, that's searching for an actual (findable) nature,

And what is it for, that there's craving?

苦樂由何生？

何足憂與喜？

若於性中覓，

孰為愛所愛？

कुतः सुखं वा दुःखं वा किं प्रियं वा किमप्रियम्

का तृष्णा कुत्र सा तृष्णा मृग्यमाणा स्वभावतः

(153) Upon discerning analysis, (what) world of living beings (is there)?

Who is (possibly) there that will die (from here)?

Who is there that'll come to exist? Who is there that has existed?

Who is there that is a relative? (Who is there that is) a friend? (And who is there whose friend it is?)

細究此世人，

誰將辭此世？

孰生孰當生？

孰為親與友？

विचारे जीवलोकः कः को नामात्र मरिष्यति

को भविष्यति को भूतः को बन्धुः कस्य कः सुहृत्

(154) Those of my type, understand please

That all (of them) are like space.

But, those wishing for happiness for a "self"

Get agitated and overexcited

何不齊受持：

一切似虛空？

世人慾求樂，

然由爭愛因，

頻生煩亂喜。

सर्वमाकाशसंकाशं परिगृह्णन्तु मद्विधाः

प्रकुप्यन्ति प्रहृष्यन्ति कलहोत्सवहेतुभिः

(155) Through fights and festivities as the cause;

And then, through the (resulting) distress and overexertion,

(Disheartening) disputes, and knifings and stabbings of each other,

They pass their lives with tremendous difficulties through (their) negative acts.

勤求生憂苦、

互諍相殺戮，

造罪艱困活。

शोकायासैर्विषादैश्च मिथश्छेदनभेदनैः

यापयन्ति सुकृच्छ्रेण पापैरात्मसुखेच्छवः

(156) And (despite) coming and coming to the better rebirth states

And experiencing and experiencing manifold pleasures,

They fall, after death, to the worse rebirth states

And unbearable sufferings for a very long time.

雖數至善趣，

頻享眾歡樂，

死已墮惡趣，

久歷難忍苦。

मृताः पतन्त्यपायेषु दीर्घतीव्रव्यथेषु च

आगत्यागत्य सुगतिं भूत्वा भूत्वा सुखोचिताः

(157) In compulsive existence, cliffs (to fall from) are aplenty;

And there it's like this, when actuality is not (known).

But since (this and what's) there, in fact, contradict one another,

In compulsive existence, it's not like this, when actuality (is known).

三有多險地，

於此易迷真，

迷悟復相違，

生時盡迷真。

भवे बहुप्रपातश्च तत्र चासत्त्वमीदृशम्

तत्रान्योन्यविरोधश्च न भवेत्तत्त्वमीदृशम्

(158) There, too, there are incomparable, violent

Oceans of suffering beyond any end;

There, like that, there's little strength;

There, as well, there's little life span;

將歷難忍苦，

無邊如大海。

苦海善力微，

壽命亦短促。

तत्र चानुपमास्तीव्रा अनन्तदुःखसागराः

तत्रैवमल्पबलता तत्राप्यल्पत्वमायुषः

(159) There, as well, with activities for longevity and health,

With hunger and exhaustion,

With sleep and calamities, and likewise

With fruitless company with infantile people,

汲汲為身命，

強忍飢疲苦，

昏眠受他害，

伴愚行無義。

तत्रापि जीवितारोग्यव्यापारैः क्षुत्क्लमश्रमैः

निद्रयोपद्रवैर्बालसंसर्गैर्निष्फलैस्तथा

(160) A lifetime passes quickly, and in vain.

Yet, analytical discernment is so difficult to gain!

So there, as well, where's there a means

For turning back chronic distraction?

無義命速逝，

觀慧極難得。

此生有何法，

除滅散亂習？

वृथैवायुर्वहत्याशु विवेकस्तु सुदुर्लभः

तत्राप्यभ्यस्तविक्षेपनिवारणगतिः कुतः

(161) There, as well, demonic force is working hard

To bring about a fall to the most awful rebirth states.

There, (because) there's a profusion of false paths,

Indecisively wavering is so hard to transcend.

今生魔亦勤，

誘墮大惡趣。

今生邪道多，

難卻正法疑。

तत्रापि मारो यतते महापायप्रपातने

तत्रासन्मार्गबाहुल्याद्विचिकित्सा च दुर्जया

(162) And with the difficulty of gaining a respite again,

And the advent of a Buddha even more difficult to gain,

And the rapids of disturbing emotion so difficult to get out of,

Alas, suffering will just go on and on.

暇滿難再得，

佛世難復值，

惑流不易斷，

嗚呼苦相續！

पुनश्च क्षणदौर्लम्यं बुद्धोत्पादो ऽतिदुर्लभः

क्लेशौघो दुर्निवारश्चेत्यहो दुःखपरम्परा

(163) Oh dear, it's really fit to feel sad

About those who are caught in a rapids of suffering

And who fail to see their own terrible situations,

Although they're in extremely terrible states.

輪迴雖極苦，

痴故不自覺。

眾生溺苦流，

嗚呼堪悲愍！

अहो बतातिशोच्यत्वमेषां दुःखौघवर्तिनाम्

ये नेक्षन्ते स्वदौःस्थित्यमेवमप्यतिदुःस्थिताः

(164) For example, just as some people, abluting and abluting,

Would jump into fire again and again,

And though, in extremely terrible states,

Proudly (consider) themselves in extremely wonderful situations;

如人數沐浴，

複數入火中；

如是雖極苦，

猶自引為樂。

स्नात्वा स्नात्वा यथा कश्चिद्विशेद्वह्निं मुहुर्मुहुः

स्वसौस्थित्यं च मन्यन्त एवमप्यतिदुःस्थिताः

(165) Likewise, there are those who frolic about,

Fooling around, as if there weren't old age and death.

But first, they'll be made to lose their lives,

And then comes an unbearable fall to a worse rebirth state.

如是諸眾生，

度日若無死。

今生遭弒殺，

後世墮惡趣。

अजरामरलीलानामेवं विहरतां सताम्

आयास्यन्त्यापदो घोराः कृत्वा मरणमग्रतः

(166) Oh, when shall I come to bring peace

To those tortured by the fires of sufferings like that,

With a rain of my buildup of happiness

Pouring forth from the clouds of my positive force?

自集福德雲，

何時方能降，

利生安樂雨，

為眾息苦火？

एवं दुःखाग्नितप्तानां शान्तिं कुर्यामहं कदा

पुण्यमेघसमुद्भूतैः सुखोपकरणैः स्वकैः

(167) Oh, when shall I respectfully build up a network of positive force

In a manner of no mental aim (at impossible existence),

And then teach voidness to those

Who've been ruined by (such) mental aim.

何時心無緣，

誠敬集福德，

於執有眾生，

開示空性理？

कदोपलम्भदृष्टिभ्यो देशयिष्यामि शून्यताम्

संवृत्यानुपलम्भेन पुण्यसंभारमादरात्