རིན་པོ་ཆེ་འབར་བའི་རྒྱུད།

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

6. Investigation of Desire and the Desirous One

(Addiction)

1. gal te 'dod chags snga rol na/
'dod chags med pa'i chags yod na/
de la brten nas 'dod chags yod/
chags yod 'dod chags yod par 'gyur/

1. If a desirous one without desire exists before desire, desire would exist dependent on that [desirous one]. [When] a desirous one exists, desire exists.

2. chags pa yod par 'gyur na'ang*/
'dod chags yod par ga la 'gyur/
chags pa la yang 'dod chags ni/
yod dam med kyang rim pa mtshungs/

[*Ts. 146 chags pa yod par ma 'gyur na but acknowledges that Buddhapalita & Sherab Dronme follow the reading above. Ts. 147-9 has a lengthy discussion about the difference between the old and new translations of these verses.]

2. If there were no desirous one, how could there be desire? The same follows for the desirous one too: [it depends on] whether desire exists or not.

3. 'dod chags dang ni chags pa dag/
lhan cig nyid du skye mi rigs/
'di ltar 'dod chags chags pa dag /
phan tshun ltos pa med par 'gyur/

3. It is not reasonable for desire and the desirous one to arise as co-existent. In this way desire and the desirous one would not be mutually contingent.

4. gcig nyid lhan cig nyid med de/
de nyid de dang lhan cig min/
ci ste tha dad nyid yin na/
lhan cig nyid du ji ltar 'gyur/

4. Identity has no co-existence: something cannot be co-existent with itself. If there were difference, how could there be co-existence?

5. gal te gcig pu lhan cig na/
grogs med par yang der 'gyur ro/
gal te tha dad lhan cig na/
grogs med par yang der 'gyur ro/

5. If the identical were co-existent, [co-existence] would also occur between the unrelated; if the different were co-existent, [co-existence] would also occur between the unrelated.

[grogs med par is translated by K., [and G. (Gnoli)] as "without association". The Tibetan literally means "without assistance". grogs pa is the defining characteristic of rkyen (condition), i.e. it implies a functional relationship, usually causal; it is what helps something become what it is.]

6. gal te tha dad lhan cig na/
ci go 'dod chags chags pa dag/
tha dad nyid du grub 'gyur ram/
des na de gnyis lhan cig 'gyur/

6. If the different were co-existent, how would desire and the desirous one be established as different or, if that were so, [how would] those two be co-existent?

[this verse seems to say no more than v.7 below, but says it less neatly].

7. gal te 'dod chags chags pa dag/
tha dad nyid du grub gyur na/
de dag lhan cig nyid du ni/
ci yi phyir na yongs su rtog/

7. If desire and the desirous were established as different, because of what could one understand them as co-existent?

8. tha dad grub par ma gyur pas/
de phyir lhan cig 'dod byed na/
lhan cig rab tu grub pa'i phyir/
tha dad nyid du yang 'dod dam/

8. If one asserts them to be co-existent because they are not established as different, then because they would be very much established as co-existent, would one not also have to assert them to be different?

9. tha dad dngos po ma grub pas/
lhan cig dngos po 'grub mi 'gyur/
tha dad dngos po gang yod na/
lhan cig dngos por 'dod par byed/

9. Since different things are not established, co-existent things are not established. If there existed any different things, one could assert them as co-existent things.

10. de ltar 'dod chags chags pa dag/
lhan cig lhan cig min mi 'grub/
'dod chags bzhin du chos rnams kun/
lhan cig lhan cig min mi 'grub/

10. In that way, desire and the desirous one are not established as co-existent or not co-existent. Like desire, all phenomena are not established as co-existent or not co-existent.

[Ts. 153 explains "all phenomena" to refer to hatred and the hater, stupidity and the confused one, and proceeds to reconstruct v.1 substituting "hatred" for "desire" etc.]

'dod chags dang chags pa brtag pa zhes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa drug pa'o //