Mlamadhyamakakrik

Pratyayapark : Analyi of condition

No thing anywhere i ever born from itelf, from omething ele, from both or
without a caue.
There are four condition: Caue, object, immediate and dominant. There i no
fifth.
The eence of thing doe not exit in condition and o on. If an own thing
doe not exit, an other thing doe not exit.
There i no activity which ha condition. There i no activity which doe not
have condition. There are no condition which do not have activity, and none which do
have activity.
Since omething i born in dependence upon them, then they are known a
condition. A long a it i not born, why are they not non-condition?
It i impoible for omething that either exit or not to have condition. If it
were non-exitent, of what would they be the condition? If it were exitent, why would
it need condition?
When thing cannot be etablihed a either exitent, non-exitent or both, how
can one peak of an etablihing caue. Such would be impoible.
An exitent phenomenon i clearly aid to have no object at all. If the
phenomenon ha no object, where can the object exit?
If phenomena are not born, it i invalid for there to be ceation. Therefore, an
immediate [condition] i unreaonable. What, having ceaed, can alo be a condition?
Becaue the exitence of eence-le thing doe not exit, it i incorrect to
ay:When thi exit, that arie.
There i no effect at all in the condition individually or together. How can that
which i not in the condition itelf be born from condition?
If, although the effect i not there, it i born from thoe condition, why i an
effect not born from what are not it condition?
Effect [are of] the nature of condition. Condition do not have own nature.
How can thoe effect of what doe not have own nature [be of] the nature of
condition?
Therefore, [it doe] not have the nature of condition, nor i there an effect with
the nature of non-condition. Since there i no effect, what could [be it] non-condition
or condition?
Gatgatapark : Analyi of going and not going
Then there i no going in what ha gone; there i no going alo in what ha not
[yet] gone. Motion i unknowable apart from what ha gone and not [yet] gone.
Where there i moving, there there i going. Furthermore, becaue moving i
within motion -- and i neither gone nor not [yet] gone, therefore, there i going within
motion.

How can going be poible within motion? Becaue motion that i not going i
impoible.
For whomever there i going within motion, for him it will follow that there
[could be] no going within motion, becaue there i going within motion. (Or, following
the tructure and wording of v. 10: To claim that there i going within motion implie
that there could be no going within motion, becaue it i aerted there i going within
motion.)
If there were going within motion, it would follow that going would be twofold:
that by which one become omeone in motion [in a place] and [that by which one] goe
in that [place].
If going were twofold, the goer alo would be twofold, becaue going i
impoible without a goer.
If there were no goer, going would be impoible. If there were no going, where
could a goer be exitent?
When a goer doe not go, a non-goer cannot go; what third one other than a goer
and a non-goer could go?
When a goer i impoible without going, then how i it poible to ay: a goer
goe?
To claim that a goer goe implie that there could be a goer who doe not go,
becaue it i aerted that a goer goe.
If the goer goe, it would follow that going would be twofold: that which
reveal* the goer and that which goe once [he] ha become a goer.
If a beginning of going doe not exit in what ha gone, [if] a beginning of going
doe not exit alo in what ha not [yet] gone [and if] there doe not exit a beginning
within motion, wherein i a beginning of going made?
Before a beginning of going, there i not any motion or anything which ha gone
wherein going could begin. How can going exit in what ha not [yet] gone?
If a beginning of going i imply not apparent in any way, examine: what ha
gone? what i motion? what ha not [yet] gone?
When a goer doe not tay, a non-goer cannot tay; what third one other than a
goer and a non-goer could tay?
When a goer i not poible without going, how then i it poible [to ay]: a
goer tay.
There i no reveral of motion*, nor alo of what ha gone [and] what ha not
[yet] gone. [Reveral of] going, engagement [to tay] and reveral [of taying] are
imilar to going.
It i inappropriate to ay: going and a goer are the ame. It i inappropriate to
ay: going and a goer are different.
If whatever i going were a goer, it would follow that the actor and the act would
be the ame too.
If going and a goer were conceived a different, there could be going without a
goer and a goer without going.
If thing are not etablihed a the ame and a different, how can they be
etablihed?
That very going by which a goer i made evident doe not [enable a goer to] go.
Becaue there i no [goer] before going, who would be going where?
[A going] which i other than the going by which a goer i made evident doe
not [enable a goer to] go. Becaue it i impoible for going to be twofold within a
ingle goer.

One who i a goer doe not go in the three apect of going. Alo one who i not
[a goer] doe not go in the three apect of going.
One who i and i not [a goer] alo doe not go in the three apect of going.
Therefore, going and a goer and alo that which i gone over do not exit.
Cak urdndriyapark : Analyi of the eye and the other ene-organ
Seeing and hearing and melling and tating and touching, mind are the ix ene
organ; their experienced object are what-i-een and o forth.
Seeing doe not ee itelf. How can what doe not ee itelf ee anything ele?
The example of fire i not able to fully etablih eeing. It, along with eeing,
ha been refuted by gone, not gone and going.
When not eeing the lightet thing, there i no act of eeing. How can it [then]
be reaonable to ay: eeing ee?
Seeing doe not ee; non-eeing doe not ee. It hould be undertood that eeing
explain the eer too.
Without letting go of [eeing] a eer doe not exit; in letting go of eeing, there
i alo [no eer]. If there i no eer, where can there be what-i-een and eeing?
Jut a it i aid that a child emerge in dependence on a father and a mother,
likewie it i aid that concioune emerge in dependence upon an eye and a viual
form.
Becaue there i no what-i-een and no eeing, the four uch a concioune
do not exit. How can clinging etc. exit?
It hould be undertood that eeing explain hearing and melling and tating
and touching, mind, hearer, what i heard, etc.
Skandhapark : Analyi of the kandha
Apart from the caue of form, form i not perceived. Apart from form, the
caue of form alo doe not appear.
If there were form apart from the caue of form, it would follow that form i
without caue; there i no object at all that i without caue.
If a caue of form exited apart from form, it would exit a a caue without
fruit; caue without fruit do not exit.
If form exited, a caue of form would be untenable; if form did not exit, a
caue of form would be untenable.
Form which do not have a caue are not at all tenable. Therefore, do not
conceive the concept of form at all.
It i untenable to ay, the fruit i like the caue. It i alo untenable to ay, the
fruit i unlike the caue.
Feeling and perception, impule and mind and all thing are comparable in
every apect, at every tage with form.
When having argued by mean of emptine, everything of that one who object
i not an objection; it i imilar to what i to be etablihed.
When having explained by mean of emptine, everything of that one who find
fault i not a fault; it i imilar to what i to be etablihed.

Dhtupark : Analyi of the dhat

Not the lightet bit of pace exit prior to the characteritic of pace. If [pace]
exited prior to it characteritic, it would follow that it would be without
characteritic.
A thing without characteritic doe not exit anywhere at all. If a thing without
characteritic doe not exit, to what do characteritic extend?
Characteritic do not extend to that which ha no characteritic; nor to what
poee characteritic. They alo cannot extend to omething other than what either
poee or doe not have characteritic.
If characteritic do not extend [to omething] , omething characterized would
be impoible. If omething characterized i impoible, characteritic too would not
exit.
Therefore, omething characterized doe not exit and characteritic do not
exit. There alo doe not exit a thing which i apart from being omething
characterized or a characteritic.
If there i not a thing, of what can there be a non-thing? By whom are the
oppoite thing and non-thing known [a] a thing and a non-thing?
Therefore, pace i not a thing; it i not a non-thing; it i not omething
characterized; it i not a characteritic. The other five element too are imilar to pace.
Thoe of mall mind ee thing a exitent and non-exitent. They do not
behold the utter pacification of what i een.
Rgaraktapark : Analyi of paion and the impaioned
If a deirou one without deire exit before deire, deire would exit
dependent on that [deirou one]. [When] a deirou one exit, deire exit.
If there were no deirou one, how could there be deire? The ame follow for
the deirou one too: [it depend on] whether deire exit or not.
It i not reaonable for deire and the deirou one to arie a co-exitent. In thi
way deire and the deirou one would not be mutually contingent.
Identity ha no co-exitence: omething cannot be co-exitent with itelf. If
there were difference, how could there be co-exitence?
If the identical were co-exitent, [co-exitence] would alo occur between the
unrelated; if the different were co-exitent, [co-exitence] would alo occur between the
unrelated.
If the different were co-exitent, how would deire and the deirou one be
etablihed a different or, if that were o, [how would] thoe two be co-exitent?
If deire and the deirou were etablihed a different, becaue of what could
one undertand them a co-exitent?
If one aert them to be co-exitent becaue they are not etablihed a different,
then becaue they would be very much etablihed a co-exitent, would one not alo
have to aert them to be different?
Since different thing are not etablihed, co-exitent thing are not etablihed.
If there exited any different thing, one could aert them a co-exitent thing.

In that way, deire and the deirou one are not etablihed a co-exitent or not
co-exitent. Like deire, all phenomena are not etablihed a co-exitent or not coexitent.
Samkr tapark : Analyi of the conditioned
If birth were compounded, it would poe the three characteritic [of a
compound]. If birth were uncompounded, how would it be a characteritic of a
compound?
The three uch a birth cannot individually be that which characterie
compound. How i it poible for one at one time to be compounded [of all three]?
If birth, abiding and perihing had an other characteritic of being compounded,
thi would be endle. If not, they would not be compounded.
The birth of birth give birth to the root birth alone. The root birth alo i that
which give birth to the birth of birth.
If your birth of birth give birth to the root birth, how doe that which i not yet
born from your root give birth to that [root birth]?
If that which i born from your root birth give birth to the root, how doe that
root which i born from that give birth to that [from which it i born]?
If that which ha not been born i able to give birth to that, that of your which i
being born hould be able to give birth to that.
Jut a lamplight illuminate itelf and other, likewie birth too give birth to
both itelf and the thing of other.
Wherever lamplight i preent there i no darkne. What doe lamplight
illuminate? It illuminate by dipelling darkne.
If, when lamplight i being generated, it doe not encounter darkne, how doe
the generation of lamplight dipel darkne?
If darkne i dipelled even though it doe not encounter lamplight, thi
[lamplight] dwelling here would eliminate the darkne that dwell in all the world.
If lamplight illuminated itelf and the thing of other, darkne too would
without doubt obcure itelf and the thing of other.
How can unborn birth give birth to itelf? If the born give birth, when it ha
been born, what would be born?
The born and the unborn, the being born do not in any way give birth. That ha
been explained by the gone, not gone and going.
When being born doe not arie in what i born, then how can one ay [it i]
being born in dependence on the born?
Whatever i dependently ariing, that i by nature pacified. Therefore, being
born and what i born too are pacified.
If any unborn thing exited anywhere, on being born that [unborn] thing would
not exit. If o, what would be born?
If that which ha been born give birth to what i being born, what [other thing]
that ha been born would be giving birth to that which ha been born?
If another [thing] that ha been born give birth [to it], thi would be endle. If
it i born without [another] which ha been born [OR if it i born without being born],
everything would be born like that [i.e. cauelely].
Thu it i not reaonable for what exit or doe not exit to be born. It ha been
hown above that there i no exitent or non-exitent.

It i not tenable for a thing that i perihing to be born. It i not tenable for that
which i not perihing to be a thing.
A thing that ha remained doe not remain. A thing that ha not [yet] remained
doe not remain. That which i remaining alo doe not remain. What unborn [thing]
can remain?
It i not poible for a thing that i perihing to remain. It i not poible for that
which i not perihing to be a thing.
If all thing at all time are aging and dying phenomena, what thing are there
which could remain without aging and dying?
It i not reaonable for what remain to remain due to omething ele that
remain or due to itelf. Thi i like how what ha been born i not given birth to by
itelf or another. [cf. v.18-19]
What ha ceaed doe not ceae. What ha not ceaed alo doe not ceae.
Likewie what i ceaing alo doe not. What unborn [thing] can ceae? [cf. v. 22]
It i not poible for a thing which ha remained to ceae. It i alo not poible
for a thing which ha not remained to ceae.
A particular tate [of omething] doe not caue that particular tate itelf to
ceae. Moreover, another particular tate doe not caue that particular tate to ceae.
When the birth of all phenomena i not poible, then the ceation of all
phenomena i not poible.
Ceation i not poible in an exitent thing. Thingne and nothingne are not
poible in one.
Ceation i not poible alo in what i not a thing. Thi i imilar to how there
i no cutting off a econd head. [i.e. a peron cannot be beheaded twice]
Ceation doe not exit by it own elf, nor doe ceation [exit] by omething
ele. Thi i like how what ha been born i not given birth to by itelf or another [cf.
25]
Becaue birth and remaining and perihing are not etablihed, there i no
conditioned. Becaue the conditioned i utterly unetablihed, how can the
unconditioned be etablihed?
Like a dream, like a magician illuion, like a city of gandharva, likewie birth
and likewie remaining, likewie perihing are taught.