Investigation of Views

(return to list of Contents & Translation of "Mulamadhyamakakarika: Verses from the Centre")

27. Investigation of Views

(Opinion)

1. /’das dus byung ma byung zhes dang//’jig rten rtag pa la sogs par//lta ba gang yin de dag ni//sngon gyi mtha’ la brten pa yin/

1. Those views such as “I occurred or did not occur in the past,” the world is permanent, are dependent on the extreme of before.

2. /ma ‘ongs dus gzhan ‘byung ‘gyur dang//mi ‘byung ‘jig rten mtha’ sogs par//lta ba gang yin de dag ni//phyi ma’i mtha’ la brten pa yin/

2. Those views such as I will occur or not occur at another time in the future, the world has an end, are dependent on the extreme of Later.

3./’das pa’i dus na byung gyur zhes//bya ba de ni mi ‘thad do//sngon tshe rnams su gang byung ba//de nyid ‘di ni ma yin no/

3. It is incorrect to say: “I occurred at a time in the past.” Whatever occurred before, that is not this.

4./de nyid bdag tu ‘gyur snyam na//nye bar len pa tha dad ‘gyur//nye bar len pa ma gtogs par//khyod kyi bdag ni gang zhig yin/

4. If you think that that became me, then that-which-is-clung-to would be something else. What is your self apart from that-which-is-clung-to?

5. /nye bar len pa ma gtogs pa’i//bdag yod ma yin byas pa’i tshe//nye bar len nyid bdag yin na//khyod kyi bdag ni med pa yin/

5. Were you [to say] that there exists no self apart from that-which-is-clung-to, if the very that-which-is-clung-to were the self, your self would be non-existent.

6. /nye bar len nyid bdag ma yin//de ‘byung ba dang ‘jig pa yin//nye bar blang ba ji lta bur//nye bar len po yin par ‘gyur/

6. The very that-which-is-clung-to is not the self: it arises and passes away. How can that-which-has-been-clung-to be the one that clings?

7. /bdag ni nye bar len pa las//gzhan du ‘thad pa nyid ma yin//gal te gzhan na len med par//gzung yod rigs na gzung du med/

7. It is not correct for the self to be other than that-which-is-clung-to. If it were other, with nothing to cling to, then something [i.e. the self] fit to be apprehended would not be apprehended.

8. /de ltar len las gzhan ma yin//de ni nyer len nyid kyang min//bdag ni nye bar len med min//med pa nyid du’ang de ma nges/

8. In that way, it is not other than that-which-is-clung-to nor is it that-which-is-clung-to. The self is not not that-which-is-clung-to, nor can it be ascertained as nothing.

9. /’das pa’i dus na ma byung zhes//bya ba de yang mi ‘thad do//sngon tshe rnams su gang byung ba//de las ‘di gzhan ma yin no/

9. It is incorrect to say: “I did not occur at a time in the past.” Whatever occurred before, this is not other than that.

10. /gal te ‘di ni gzhan gyur na//de med par yang ‘byung bar ‘gyur//de bzhin de ni gnas ‘gyur zhing//der ma shi bar skye bar ‘gyur/

10. If this were other, it would arise even without that. Likewise, that could remain and be born without dying in that [former life].

11. /chad dang las rnams chud za dang//gzhan gyis byas pa’i las rnams ni//gzhan gyis so sor myong ba dang//de la sogs par thal bar ‘gyur/

11. Cut off and actions wasted, acts committed by others would be experienced by someone else. Such would be the consequences.

12. /ma byung ba las ‘byung min te//’di la skyon du thal bar ‘gyur//bdag ni byas par ‘gyur ba dang//’byung ba’am* rgyu med can du ‘gyur/

[Lha. *ba’ang]

12. There is no occurence from what has not occured. In that case faults would follow: the self would be something made or even though it occured it would be uncaused.

13. /de ltar bdag byung bdag ma byung//gnyis ka gnyis ka ma yin par//’das la lta ba gang yin pa*//de dag* ‘thad pa ma yin no/

[Lha. *par **ni]

13. Therefore, “the self occured, did not occur, both or neither:” all those views of the past are invalid.

14. /ma ‘ongs dus gzhan ‘byung ‘gyur dang//’byung bar mi ‘gyur zhes bya bar//lta ba gang yin de dag ni//’das pa’i dus dang mtshungs pa yin/

14. “I will occur at another time in the future,” “I will not occur:” all those views are similar to [those of] the past.

15. /gal te lha de mi de na//de lta na ni rtag par ‘gyur//lha ni ma skyes nyid ‘gyur te//rtag la skye ba med phyir ro/

15. If the divine were human, then there would be something permanent. The divine is utterly unborn, because there is no birth in permanence.

16. /gal te lha las mi gzhan na//de lta na ni mi rtag ‘gyur//gal te lha mi gzhan yin na//rgyud ni ‘thad par mi ‘gyur ro/

16. If the human were other than the divine, then there would be no permanence. If the divine and the human were different, there could be no continuity [between them].

17. /gal te phyogs gcig lha yin la//phyogs gcig mi ni yin gyur na//rtag dang mi rtag ‘gyur ba yin//de yang rigs pa ma yin no/

17. If one part were divine and one part were human, there would be both permanence and no permanence. But that is not reasonable.

18. /gal te rtag dang mi rtag pa//gnyis ka grub par gyur* na ni//rtag pa ma yin mi rtag min//’grub par ‘gyur bar ‘dod la rag/

[Lha. *’gyur]

18. If both permanence and impermanence were established, you would have to assert non-permanence and non-impermance as established.

19. /gal te gang zhig gang nas gar//’ong zhing gang du’ang ‘gro ‘gyur na//de phyir ‘khor ba thog med par//’gyur na de ni yod ma yin/

19. If something came from somewhere and went somewhere, then samsara would be without beginning. That is not the case.

20. /gal te rtag pa ‘ga’ med na//mi rtag gang zhig yin par ‘gyur//rtag pa dang ni mi rtag dang//de gnyis bsal bar gyur pa’o/

20. If there were nothing permanent at all, what thing could be impermanent, permanent and impermanent, free of both?

21. /gal te ‘jig rten mtha’ yod na//’jig rten pha rol ji ltar ‘gyur//gal te ‘jig rten mtha’ med na//’jig rten pha rol ji ltar ‘gyur/

21. If this world had an end, how would the next world come to be? If this world had no end, how would the next world come to be?

22. /gang phyir phung po rnams kyi rgyun//’di ni mar me’i ‘od dang mtshungs//de phyir mtha’ yod nyid dang ni//mtha’ med nyid kyang mi rigs so/

22. Because the continuity of the aggregates is similar to the light of a lamp, therefore the very existence or non-existence of an end is unreasonable.

23. /gal te snga ma ‘jig ‘gyur zhing//phung po ‘di la brten byas nas//phung po de ni mi ‘byung na//des na ‘jig rten mtha’ yod ‘gyur/

23. If the former perished and that [future] aggregate did not arise in dependence upon this aggregate, then this world would have an end.

24. /gal te snga ma mi ‘jig cing//phung po ‘di la brten byas nas//phung po de ni mi ‘byung na//des na ‘jig rten mtha’ med ‘gyur/

24. If the former did not perish and that [future] aggregate did not arise in dependence upon this aggregate, then this world would not have an end.

25. /gal te phyogs gcig mtha’ yod la*//phyogs gcig mtha’ ni med ‘gyur na//’jig rten mtha’ yod mtha’ med ‘gyur//de yang rigs pa ma yin no/

[Lha. *pa]

25. If one part had an end and one part did not have an end, the world would be with and without an end. That too is unreasonable.

26. /ji lta bur na nyer len po’i//phyogs gcig rnam par ‘jig ‘gyur la//phyogs gcig rnam par ‘jig mi ‘gyur//de ltar de ni mi rigs so/

26. How can one part of the one-who-clings perish while one part does not perish? Likewise, that is unreasonable.

27. /ji lta bur na nyer blang ba*//phyogs gcig rnam par ‘jig ‘gyur la//phyogs gcig rnam par ‘jig mi ‘gyur//de ltar de yang mi rigs so/

[Lha. *ba’i]

27. How can one part of that-which-is-clung-to perish while one part does not perish? Likewise, that is unreasonable.

28. /gal te mtha’ yod mtha’ med pa//gnyis ka grub par gyur na ni//mtha’ yod ma yin mtha’ med min//’grub par ‘gyur bar ‘dod la rag/

28. If both the presence and absence of an end were established, you would have to assert non-presence and non-absence as established.

29. /yang na dngos po thams cad dag//stong phyir rtag la sogs lta ba//gang dag gang du gang la ni//ci las kun tu ‘byung bar ‘gyur/

29. And because all things are empty, about what and in whom do views such as that of permanence spring forth?

30. /gang gis thugs rtse nyer bzung nas//lta ba thams cad spang ba’i phyir//dam pa’i chos ni ston mdzad pa//gou tam de la phyag ‘tshal/

30. I bow down to Gautama, whose kindness holds one close, who revealed the sublime dharma in order to let go of all views.

[Ts. recognizes that this verse can be treated as separate from the body of the chapter. He also cites the Sa lu ljang pa’i mdo (Shalistamba Sutra), an early Mahayana sutra, as a source for this chapter.]

lta ba brtag pa zhes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa nyi shu bdun pa’o////