It is called a cause
conventionally
after the product is seen - and vice versa.
Aryadeva - Four Hundred Verses
Moreover, since there is no inherent production in any of the three times, one must accept that production is false and like a magician's illusion.
Sutra says: "Monks, it is as follows: when the eye is produced, it does not come from anywhere, and when it ceases, it does not go anywhere. " Thus if there were inherent production, a thing should come from somewhere when it is produced, like the rising mood, and go somewhere when it ceases, like the setting moon. In that case it would be permanent, but since production and cessation are mere nominal imputations, one must accept that they are like magical illusions. )
.
L5: [2. Summarized meaning: showing the effects of refuting production]
.
\ ###
\ 360.
\ There is NO COMING of the produced,
\ Likewise NO GOING of that which has ceased.
\ Since it is thus, why should existence
\ Not be like a magician's illusions?
.
(i. e. The Middle Way about production: Production / origination, duration, and cessation are like illusions. They are empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. But that doesn't mean that they are completely non-existent. They are not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. They are dependent on the mind, but not from the mind only. They are like illusions but not total illusions. )
.
(-- Since things do not come from anywhere when they are produced nor go anywhere when they cease, why should external and internal existence not be like a magician's illusions? When dependent arising is seen as it is, it is like a created illusion and not like a barren woman's child.
At this point Candrakirti's commentary says that if mere production is negated, it is the kind of object of comprehension that a barren woman's child is and thus a denial of dependent arising. Inability to assert production in one's own system and placing hope in a system which claims production neither exists [nor does not exist] destroys the Madhyamika view. Since adherence to such an interpretation creates causes for bad rebirths, it should be discarded like a gob of spittle!
-- Production is not truly existent, but, neither absolutely non existent. It exist in dependence. )
.
L4: [B. General refutation of inherently existent production, duration and disintegration]
L5: [1. Refutation of inherently existent characteristics by examining sequentiality and simultaneity]
.
\ ###
\ 361.
\ PRODUCTION, DURATION AND DISINTEGRATION
\ DO NOT OCCUR simultaneously.
\ If they are not consecutive either,
\ When can they ever occur?
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because they cannot exist simultaneously or sequentially: so when do they exist ? )
.
(-- Since production, duration and disintegration, the characteristics of products, do not occur simultaneously by way of their own entity nor consecutively by way of their own entity, when do they occur by way of their own entity? The
85 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
subjects -- production, duration and disintegration -- do not exist inherently because of not being inherently simultaneous or consecutive. )
.
L5: [2. Refutation through the consequence of infinite regress of the characteristics]
.
\ ###
\ 362.
\ If for production and all the others,
\ All of these occurred again,
\ Disintegration would seem like production
\ And duration like disintegration.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because otherwise there would be infinite regress: As product themselves they would also have origination, duration and cessation, and this ad infinitum. Infinite regress is not acceptable. )
.
(-- Since production, duration and disintegration would all require the production of production and so forth, disintegration, like production, would have another disintegration, and duration too would seem like disintegration in that one would have to assert that it has another duration. Thus there would be infinite regress. In that case the basic characteristics would not be established. Therefore there is not even an atom of inherent existence. )
.
L5: [3. Refutation by examining whether they are one or different]
.
\ ###
\ 363.
\ If that which is characterized is said to be
\ Different from its characteristics,
\ How can the characterized be impermanent?
\ Alternatively, existence of all four is unclear.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because they cannot be the same or different than the product they characterized: They are not different or separate, not the same. They cannot exist independently, alone, on their own, separate from the product. They are interdependent. They are co-dependently arisen concepts. And this is the same for any characteristics and its characterized. )
.
(-- Question: Are the characteristics and that which they characterized one or different in nature?
-- Assertion: That which is characterized namely a product such as a pot, is different in nature from its three characteristics - production, duration and disintegration.
-- How can that which is characterized, namely a product such as a pot, be impermanent? It follows that it is not, for impermanence and the pot are inherently different. Alternatively, if they are inherently not different, the four, i. e. the three characteristics and that which they characterize, do not clearly have the entity of existing as functional things. It follows that the characteristics are not characteristics because of being one with that which they characterize, and that which they characterize is not what is characterized because of being one with the characteristics. One should therefore not assert that they are inherently one or different.
-- As characteristics of a characterized, they are neither one nor separate form it; none of them exist independently. Nothing "is" and is impermanent. )
.
L5: [4. Refutation by examining whether they are existent or non-existent by way of their own entity] L6: [a. Refuting that production is truly existent because there are truly existent producing causes]
.
\ ###
\ 364.
\ A thing is not produced from a thing
\ Nor is a thing produced from a non-thing.
\ A non-thing is not produced from a non-thing
\ Nor is a non-thing produced from a thing.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because there is no way a thing or non-thing can be
86 / 117
.
\ ###
\ 366.
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
produced by another thing or non-thing: I think it means again that the cause and the effect cannot be simultaneous not separate - this in the case of origination, and in the case of cessation. A produced thing is an origination; a produced non-thing is a cessation. A cause that is a thing is a cause that still exist (simultaneity) at the moment of origination or cessation. A cause that is a non-thing is a cause that do not exist anymore (separateness) at the moment of origination or cessation. So cause and effect (simultaneous or in sequence) cannot explain origination, nor cessation, and thus neither duration. )
.
(-- Assertion: Production and so forth exist inherently because the agent of production exists inherently.
-- Answer:
-- The sprout, as an already existing functional thing, is not produced again while the seed as a functional thing exist, because a sprout is not produced unless the seed undergoes change. Also a sprout that has already been produced cannot be produced again. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of origination)
-- The sprout as a functional thing is not produced from a non-functional seed, because a non-functional thing does not have the ability to produce an effect. (cause and effect being separate in the case of origination)
-- Furthermore a non-functional effect is not produced from a non-functional cause: a burnt seed does not produce a burnt sprout. (cause and effect being separate in the case of cessation)
-- A non-functional effect is not produced from a functional cause since the fallacies already explained apply. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of cessation)
Since inherent production is impossible, causes and conditions giving rise to it are meaningless. )
.
L6: [b. Production and so forth are neither truly existent things nor non-things]
.
\ ###
\ 365.
\ A thing does not become a thing,
\ Nor does a non-thing become a thing.
\ A non-thing does not become a non-thing,
\ Nor does a thing become a non-thing.
.
(i. e. (There is no inherent origination, duration and production because origination and cessation are not self-caused nor caused by other: Very similar to the previous verse. Here the verb "to produce" of the last verse is replaced with the verb "to become". It means a thing doesn't originate by itself, not ceased by itself. When it change it is not the same, nor different. A thing does not exist and change. )
.
(About change: Something that already exists is not produced again, nor do its causes still exist, when it has been produced. The relationship between cause and effect and the function of production are then examined to establish their lack of inherent existence.
-- Moreover, should one consider that production and disintegration pertain to that which has the nature of a functional thing or a non-functional thing? Both are inappropriate.
-- Something already produced does not again become a thing being produced, since it is senseless for it to be produced again. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of origination)
-- A non-functional thing is not produced again as a thing, otherwise it follows that even a barren woman's child could be born. Thus there is no inherent production of either functional or non-functional things. (cause and effect being separate in the case of origination)
-- A totally disintegrated nonfunctional thing does not again become a disintegrating non-functional thing, for something non-existent like a barren woman's child does not disintegrate. (cause and effect being separate in the case of cessation)
-- A functional thing that is already produced does not become a nonfunctional thing, because the two are contradictory. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of cessation)
Sutra says: "All products and non-products are free [from inherent existence]. Those sages who do not have conceptions [of inherent existence] understand that which is a non-product with regard to all phenomena and are free from views of an [inherent] self. )
.
L4: [C. Refuting that what is in the process of being produced is being produced inherently] L5: [1. Brief explanation]
87 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ A thing in the process of production
\ Since half-produced, is not being produced.
\ Alternatively it follows that everything
\ Is in the process of being produced.
.
(i. e. There is no "being in the process of production" because there is no such thing as being half produced: So we cannot say things exist because we really directly can see their production. Nothing exist and change. )
.
(-- Assertion: Neither that which has been produced nor that which is unproduced is being produced. That which is in the process of production is being produced.
-- Answer: It follows that a sprout in the process of production is not being produced by way of its own entity, because that which is in the process of production must be posited as half produced and half unproduced. The produced part belongs to what has already been produced and the unproduced part to what is unproduced. There is nothing in the process of production with parts other than these existent by way of its own entity. If the produced and the unproduced are both considered to be that which is presently being produced, both past and future are also in the process of being produced. Alternatively, it follows that all three times are presently being produced, since all produced and unproduced things are in the process of production. )
.
L5: [2. Extensive explanation]
L6: [a. Refutation by examining that which is in the process of being produced]
.
\ ###
\ 367.
\ That which has the nature of presently being produced
\ Is not in the process of production,
\ Nor is that in the process of production
\ Which lacks the nature of presently being produced.
.
(i. e. As something is conventionally being produced is continually change and is never the same from one moment to the other. Also the outcome is never sure. So we can never say that something is in the process of being produce. Nothing exist and change. )
.
(--If that which is presently being produced exists by way of its entity, is it considered to have its own nature or not? Both are unacceptable. it follows that it could not be the process of production.
It follows that anything which has the nature of presently being produced does not have the nature of being in the process of production. It follows that whatever does not have the nature of presently being produced is also not in the process of production, because that which is not presently being produced is contrary to that which is. )
.
L6: [b. Refuting the assertion that a thing existing between past and future is that which is in the process of being produced]
.
\ ###
\ 368.
\ For anyone to whom the two are
\ Impossible without an intermediate,
\ There is nothing in the process of production,
\ For it too would have an intermediate.
.
(i. e. So let's assume there is a step between the initial cause and the final effect along the process of production. This intermediate product also has its own production, its own "being in the process of production", and its own intermediate step. There would be infinite regress again, and it would explain nothing at all. )
.
(-- Assertion: That which is in the process of production exists, since it is located between the past and future. These two times may be posited in relation to what is presently being produced.
-- Answer: In any opponent's system in which there is definitely an intermediate stage without which the past and future cannot exist, that which is presently being produced could not exist by way of its own entity, since there would be infinite regress, in that anything in the process of production would require another intermediate stage and that one yet another and so on. )
88 / 117
.
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L6: [c. Refuting the assertion that a thing before it is produced is what is in the process of being produced]
.
\ ###
\ 369.
\ Since the process of production is the arising
\ of the produced through cessation,
\ That which is presently being produced
\ Appears to be a different entity.
.
(i. e. An intermediary step, an object representing the half-produced final product, would be the cause of the final product. But, as shown previously, no inherently existing cause could be found anywhere. There is no absolute cause; it could always turn out to be something else because of an infinity of other causes and conditions.
It is called a cause conventionally after the product is seen - and vice versa. They are two co-dependently arisen concepts. )
.
( -- Question: If the half-produced is not in the process of production, what is?
-- Assertion: "the 4 lines of this verse"
-- Since the process of production is, for example, the sprout's being produced through cessation of the seed, something in a state where its production has begun is said to be in the process of production. Thus what is presently being produced appears to be a different entity from that which is half produced and half unproduced.
-- Answer: If one could point to anything and say "This thing has been produced from this thing which is in the process of production," one could identify something in the process of production existent by way of its own entity in relation to the thing produced from it. )
.
\ ###
\ 370.
\ When a thing is produced there cannot be
\ Anything in the process of production.
\ If the produced is in the process
\ of production, why is it being produced?
.
(i. e. If it was sure that the final product was in the process of being produced then there would be no need to produce anything else from this step on. The intermediary step, as a cause of the final product would be useless because the final product would be sure to be produced because "in the process of being produced". )
.
(-- ab: However when a thing has been produced, there cannot be anything in the process of production which exists by way of its own entity, for what was in the process of production has ceased. A produced thing which has arisen from such a process of production and which would permit its inference does not exist.
-- Assertion: The produced is in the process of production.
-- Answer: "lines cd" + If the produced is in the process of production, why is it being produced again? This is unfeasible because it has already been produced. )
.
L6: [d. Refuting the assertion that the unproduced is what is in the process of being produced] L7: [(1) Actual meaning]
.
\ ###
\ 371.
\ A thing in the process of production is said
\ To be the entirely unproduced arising.
\ Since there is no difference, why should the pot
\ Not be considered as non-existent?
.
(i. e. The intermediary step, the object in the middle, as a cause of the final product, cannot be the same as the final product, nor different. It cannot be the same because it is not perceive as the same, and doesn't have the same characteristics and effect. Until it is totally produced it is not the same. Nothing stays the same even for an infinitesimal moment. Nothing exist and change. )
.
89 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
(-- Assertion: A thing which is presently being produced is said to be produced, for although unproduced, it is approaching production.
-- Answer: If a thing that is in the process of being produced is said to be produced because, even though it is entirely unproduced, it is approaching production, why should a pot while performing its function not be considered a non- functional thing? It follows that this is a reasonable assertion, since there is no difference between the produced and the unproduced. )
.
L7: [(2) Refuting the justification]
.
\ ###
\ 372.
\ That which is presently being produced,
\ Though incomplete, is other than unproduced.
\ Yet also since other than produced,
\ The unproduced is being produced.
.
(i. e. So there is no such thing as being produced, unproduced, half-produced, and so on . . . All of these are mere concepts attributed after the facts and based on mere conventions. There is no inherent production that can be directly observed. )
.
(-- The opponent argues that if neither that which is already produced and therefore functional nor that which is unproduced and therefore non-functional is being produced, what is being produced must be that which is presently undergoing production. To demonstrate that this too is not produced in and of itself, that which is in the process of being produced is next investigated. Is it identifiable as half produced or half unproduced? Does it already have an identity or not? Is it findable as something between the past and the present? Can one find anything, when an attempt is made in this way to identify the process of production and that which is being produced?
-- Assertion: There is a difference between that which is in the process of being produced and the unproduced. That which is in the process of production is said to be associated with the activity of production, whereas the unproduced is not necessarily associated with the activity of production.
-- Answer: Since a thing in the process of being produced is associated with the activity of production, you assert that even though it has not completed that activity, it is other than unproduced and future. Yet in that case, since a thing in the process of being produced is other than something produced, you are saying that the unproduced is being produced. ) .
L7: [(3) Necessity of accepting that the unproduced is being produced, if that which is in the process of being produced is produced
by way of its own entity]
.
\ ###
\ 373.
\ That which is presently being produced,
\ Though not yet existent, is later said to exist.
\ The unproduced is thus being produced --
\ But the non-existent does not arise.
.
(i. e. Until a product is totally produce it is as good as non-existent, but it is certainly not half-produced. )
.
(-- Since that which is presently being produced is other than something produced, you must accept that it is unproduced. You might claim that anything in the process of being produced exists as a thing, because, even though it did not exist previously, it has afterwards become associated with the activity of production. If on this account you say that an entirely unproduced thing associated with the activity of production is being produced, that too is incorrect. An unproduced thing, referred to as non-existent, has not attained its entity. It does not undergo production, because it is not engaged in that activity. )
.
.
\ ###
\ 374.
\ The complete is called existent.
L5: [3. Summarized meaning]
90 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ The uncompleted is called non-existent.
\ When there is nothing in the process of production
\ What is being referred to as such?
.
(i. e. The product is either existent (conventionally) or non-existent (conventionally), but there is no such thing as half- produced (inherently). )
.
(-- That which has completed the activity of production is said to exist as a thing, and that which has not performed the activity of production is said not to exist as a thing. If neither that which has nor that which has not completed the activity of production is in the process of being produced, what is being referred to as presently being produced? Anything in the process of being produced does not have the least existence by way of its own entity. )
L3: [II. Concluding summary of the refutations of inherent existence [of production / origination, duration, cessation] ]
.
\ ###
\ 375.
\ Since without a cause
\ There is no effect,
\ BOTH STARTING AND STOPPING
\ ARE NOT FEASIBLE.
.
(i. e. The Middle Way about production / dependent origination: there is no inherent production, no inherent origination, duration and cessation, because they are all dependent on other causes and conditions. Everything is empty of inherent existence because everything is dependently arisen - even production / dependent origination. Causes and effects cannot exist independently of each other. They are interdependent. They are co-dependently arisen concepts. There is no absolute (inherently existing) cause, effect, causality, production, origination, duration, cessation. But that doesn't mean that they are totally non-existent - or that we should drop right now the teaching of dependent origination completely. They exist as mere conventions, they are useful, they could be used as adapted skillful means. There is no absolute causality, but nothing is without a cause, and no cause is without an effect. They are dependent on the mind, but not totally from the mind. They are like illusions, but not totally illusions. They are like the figures seen on the clouds, or the swirls seen at the surface of the ocean. Everything is: not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. Cause and effect, like the two poles of any duality, are not different or separate, not the same; not simultaneous, not sequential. )
.
(-- Through this investigation it becomes clear that causes and effects are interdependent, and that neither the arising of an effect nor the cessation of a cause occurs in and of itself.
-- Investigation by reasoning shows that there is no effect without a cause. Since cause and effect, then, do not truly exist and since the bases therefore do not truly exist, the sprout's starting to be produced and the seed's stopping to exist are not feasible by way of their own entity. Sutra says:
~ "Sentient beings, humans, those born from power whoever they may be.
~ None that were born and died here were born [inherently].
~ The nature of all things is empty like magician's illusions,
~ But the Forders are unable to recognize it. "
For instance, the men and women conjured by an illusionist cause the spectators of the magic, who think of them as men and women, to feel attraction and aversion. Though they also appear to the magician, he does not think of them in this way. They do not even appear to those who are unaffected by the spell. You must understand that these analogies apply respectively to the perception of common beings who have not understood dependent arising's emptiness of inherent existence, to the wisdom of subsequent attainment of the Exalted, and to the mediative equipoise of the Exalted. You should learn how conventional phenomena are established by conventional valid cognition and ultimate truth by conceptual and non-conceptual reasoning consciousness from the presentation in [Gateway for Conqueror Children], Explanation of [Shantideva's] "Engaging in the Bodhisattva Deeds" and so forth. )
L3: [The summarizing stanza:]
\ PRODUCTION AND DISINTEGRATION OF COMPOSITE THINGS
.
\ ###
91 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ ARE LIKE DREAMS AND LIKE ILLUSION.
\ When they are mere terms and mere imputation,
\ How could non-products be truly existent?
.
(i. e. There is no possible direct perception of origination, duration and cessation as taught in the Abhidharma; this cannot be used to prove the inherent existence of functional things, or the non-existence of others. This is merely another adapted skillful means. It is useful for beginners who do not have the requisites to be taught the subtle emptiness, but it should not be grasped on as if it was an absolute truth. Holding to this mistake would inhibit the full completion of the path and the attainment of complete Enlightenment. We need a gradual path composed of more and more subtle methods and wisdom; only then is it getting more and more in accord with the real non-dual nature of everything, and creating less and less cause for suffering. -- Things are not inherently produced, last, grow old, and then ceased and completely become non-existent. All of this is just like a magician's act. )
.
\ ###
\ This is the fifteenth chapter from the Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds, showing how to meditate on the refutation of that which constitutes products.
.
This concludes the commentary on the fifteenth chapter, showing how to meditate on the refutation of that which constitutes products, from Essence of Good Explanations, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas".
.
92 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L1: [Section II - B : Showing how to meditate on settling [the procedure between] spiritual guides and students by way of [explaining] the purpose of the chapters and eliminating remaining counter-arguments by misguided opponents. ]
.
-- Chapter 16 - Refuting Remaining Counter-Arguments - The dharma door of non-duality and the irrefutability of the Middle Way - P. 289
.
L2: [Chapter 16 - Refuting Remaining Counter-Arguments -
The dharma door of non-duality and the irrefutability of the Middle Way - P. 289]
.
(i. e. SHOWING HOW TO MEDITATE ON SETTLING [THE PROCEDURE BETWEEN] SPIRITUAL GUIDES AND STUDENTS BY WAY OF [EXPLAINING] THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTERS AND ELIMINATING REMAINING COUNTER-ARGUMENTS BY MISGUIDED OPPONENTS.
-- So the problem is seeing things as truly existent.
-- The opponents cannot prove their own theses; and cannot find arguments to refute Madhyamika.
-- Things are not inherently existing, but that doesn't mean that they are completely non-existing. They exist in dependence.
-- No thesis could be proven. All theses are flawed. -- Holding a thesis is believing something is absolutely right, absolutely truly existent, that in a polarity there is a right side and a wrong side. All thesis are based on inherent existence, polarity, one of the four lemmas.
-- You can show the absurdity of a thesis, but never prove a thesis. -- Emptiness is a negation (of inherent existence) without affirming anything (emptiness of emptiness).
-- No reasoning, or analogies, can prove a thesis. -- Like, the reasons are to the thesis, what the parts are to the whole, what origination duration and cessation are to the impermanent things. They are not one, they are not separate.
-- The four positions are flawed. the Tetralemma: Although things are empty, they are non absolutely non-existent either. Things do not exist and then are empty. Things exist in dependence. --
-- This is not a thesis: Madhyamika do not advances a thesis of their own; they do not hold thesis that things exist, do not, or do and do not exit . . . And because of that, no counter-arguments can be found.
-- Emptiness of emptiness: Even emptiness is empty of true existence, because its objects are not truly existent.
-- Emptiness of Dependent Origination: There is a flow but no chunks in it; no real cause, effect, causality. These are all concepts dependent on each others.
-- Beyond dualities: It is not about choosing the right side in a polarity. Both sides are dependent on each other; there is no right or wrong side. Taking side is choosing a thesis. All theses are flawed.
-- Beyond the Tetralemma: Since all four theses are seen to be flawed, one should not accept any thesis of true existence. Refuting those four positions is the position of the Madhyamikas. And because of that they cannot be refuted themselves.
-- Two skilful means / antidotes: Like: you can use "emptiness" to show the absurdity any theory based on the reality of something; and you can use "Dependent Origination" to disprove the theory that everything is non-existent at all. But none of them is by itself a final absolute theory. -- Seems like the idea is to use those tools (Emptiness and Dependent Origination) to destroy any positions based on the four possible theories (things exist, do not exist, exist then do not exist, something else).
-- The Union of both: Ultimately one realize directly that things are empty because the dependently originate, and vice versa.
-- No dualities, no differentiation, everything should be seen as pure: Since the polarity between existent and non- existent is flawed, in emptiness everything is equal, identical; there is no objective discrimination possible. There is no absolute right in opposition to an absolute wrong. Everything is relative, dependent. Everything could be used for the path. Obsession with right and wrong is the problem. But don't tell this to an unprepared mind.
-- Seeing the emptiness of one thing is seeing the emptiness of all things -- they are all equal, everything has the same ultimate nature, no absolute discrimination.
-- What good is it to perceive emptiness?
Sutra says: "Monks, it is as follows: when the eye is produced, it does not come from anywhere, and when it ceases, it does not go anywhere. " Thus if there were inherent production, a thing should come from somewhere when it is produced, like the rising mood, and go somewhere when it ceases, like the setting moon. In that case it would be permanent, but since production and cessation are mere nominal imputations, one must accept that they are like magical illusions. )
.
L5: [2. Summarized meaning: showing the effects of refuting production]
.
\ ###
\ 360.
\ There is NO COMING of the produced,
\ Likewise NO GOING of that which has ceased.
\ Since it is thus, why should existence
\ Not be like a magician's illusions?
.
(i. e. The Middle Way about production: Production / origination, duration, and cessation are like illusions. They are empty of inherent existence because dependently arisen. But that doesn't mean that they are completely non-existent. They are not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. They are dependent on the mind, but not from the mind only. They are like illusions but not total illusions. )
.
(-- Since things do not come from anywhere when they are produced nor go anywhere when they cease, why should external and internal existence not be like a magician's illusions? When dependent arising is seen as it is, it is like a created illusion and not like a barren woman's child.
At this point Candrakirti's commentary says that if mere production is negated, it is the kind of object of comprehension that a barren woman's child is and thus a denial of dependent arising. Inability to assert production in one's own system and placing hope in a system which claims production neither exists [nor does not exist] destroys the Madhyamika view. Since adherence to such an interpretation creates causes for bad rebirths, it should be discarded like a gob of spittle!
-- Production is not truly existent, but, neither absolutely non existent. It exist in dependence. )
.
L4: [B. General refutation of inherently existent production, duration and disintegration]
L5: [1. Refutation of inherently existent characteristics by examining sequentiality and simultaneity]
.
\ ###
\ 361.
\ PRODUCTION, DURATION AND DISINTEGRATION
\ DO NOT OCCUR simultaneously.
\ If they are not consecutive either,
\ When can they ever occur?
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because they cannot exist simultaneously or sequentially: so when do they exist ? )
.
(-- Since production, duration and disintegration, the characteristics of products, do not occur simultaneously by way of their own entity nor consecutively by way of their own entity, when do they occur by way of their own entity? The
85 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
subjects -- production, duration and disintegration -- do not exist inherently because of not being inherently simultaneous or consecutive. )
.
L5: [2. Refutation through the consequence of infinite regress of the characteristics]
.
\ ###
\ 362.
\ If for production and all the others,
\ All of these occurred again,
\ Disintegration would seem like production
\ And duration like disintegration.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because otherwise there would be infinite regress: As product themselves they would also have origination, duration and cessation, and this ad infinitum. Infinite regress is not acceptable. )
.
(-- Since production, duration and disintegration would all require the production of production and so forth, disintegration, like production, would have another disintegration, and duration too would seem like disintegration in that one would have to assert that it has another duration. Thus there would be infinite regress. In that case the basic characteristics would not be established. Therefore there is not even an atom of inherent existence. )
.
L5: [3. Refutation by examining whether they are one or different]
.
\ ###
\ 363.
\ If that which is characterized is said to be
\ Different from its characteristics,
\ How can the characterized be impermanent?
\ Alternatively, existence of all four is unclear.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because they cannot be the same or different than the product they characterized: They are not different or separate, not the same. They cannot exist independently, alone, on their own, separate from the product. They are interdependent. They are co-dependently arisen concepts. And this is the same for any characteristics and its characterized. )
.
(-- Question: Are the characteristics and that which they characterized one or different in nature?
-- Assertion: That which is characterized namely a product such as a pot, is different in nature from its three characteristics - production, duration and disintegration.
-- How can that which is characterized, namely a product such as a pot, be impermanent? It follows that it is not, for impermanence and the pot are inherently different. Alternatively, if they are inherently not different, the four, i. e. the three characteristics and that which they characterize, do not clearly have the entity of existing as functional things. It follows that the characteristics are not characteristics because of being one with that which they characterize, and that which they characterize is not what is characterized because of being one with the characteristics. One should therefore not assert that they are inherently one or different.
-- As characteristics of a characterized, they are neither one nor separate form it; none of them exist independently. Nothing "is" and is impermanent. )
.
L5: [4. Refutation by examining whether they are existent or non-existent by way of their own entity] L6: [a. Refuting that production is truly existent because there are truly existent producing causes]
.
\ ###
\ 364.
\ A thing is not produced from a thing
\ Nor is a thing produced from a non-thing.
\ A non-thing is not produced from a non-thing
\ Nor is a non-thing produced from a thing.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent origination, duration and production because there is no way a thing or non-thing can be
86 / 117
.
\ ###
\ 366.
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
produced by another thing or non-thing: I think it means again that the cause and the effect cannot be simultaneous not separate - this in the case of origination, and in the case of cessation. A produced thing is an origination; a produced non-thing is a cessation. A cause that is a thing is a cause that still exist (simultaneity) at the moment of origination or cessation. A cause that is a non-thing is a cause that do not exist anymore (separateness) at the moment of origination or cessation. So cause and effect (simultaneous or in sequence) cannot explain origination, nor cessation, and thus neither duration. )
.
(-- Assertion: Production and so forth exist inherently because the agent of production exists inherently.
-- Answer:
-- The sprout, as an already existing functional thing, is not produced again while the seed as a functional thing exist, because a sprout is not produced unless the seed undergoes change. Also a sprout that has already been produced cannot be produced again. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of origination)
-- The sprout as a functional thing is not produced from a non-functional seed, because a non-functional thing does not have the ability to produce an effect. (cause and effect being separate in the case of origination)
-- Furthermore a non-functional effect is not produced from a non-functional cause: a burnt seed does not produce a burnt sprout. (cause and effect being separate in the case of cessation)
-- A non-functional effect is not produced from a functional cause since the fallacies already explained apply. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of cessation)
Since inherent production is impossible, causes and conditions giving rise to it are meaningless. )
.
L6: [b. Production and so forth are neither truly existent things nor non-things]
.
\ ###
\ 365.
\ A thing does not become a thing,
\ Nor does a non-thing become a thing.
\ A non-thing does not become a non-thing,
\ Nor does a thing become a non-thing.
.
(i. e. (There is no inherent origination, duration and production because origination and cessation are not self-caused nor caused by other: Very similar to the previous verse. Here the verb "to produce" of the last verse is replaced with the verb "to become". It means a thing doesn't originate by itself, not ceased by itself. When it change it is not the same, nor different. A thing does not exist and change. )
.
(About change: Something that already exists is not produced again, nor do its causes still exist, when it has been produced. The relationship between cause and effect and the function of production are then examined to establish their lack of inherent existence.
-- Moreover, should one consider that production and disintegration pertain to that which has the nature of a functional thing or a non-functional thing? Both are inappropriate.
-- Something already produced does not again become a thing being produced, since it is senseless for it to be produced again. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of origination)
-- A non-functional thing is not produced again as a thing, otherwise it follows that even a barren woman's child could be born. Thus there is no inherent production of either functional or non-functional things. (cause and effect being separate in the case of origination)
-- A totally disintegrated nonfunctional thing does not again become a disintegrating non-functional thing, for something non-existent like a barren woman's child does not disintegrate. (cause and effect being separate in the case of cessation)
-- A functional thing that is already produced does not become a nonfunctional thing, because the two are contradictory. (simultaneity of cause and effect in the case of cessation)
Sutra says: "All products and non-products are free [from inherent existence]. Those sages who do not have conceptions [of inherent existence] understand that which is a non-product with regard to all phenomena and are free from views of an [inherent] self. )
.
L4: [C. Refuting that what is in the process of being produced is being produced inherently] L5: [1. Brief explanation]
87 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ A thing in the process of production
\ Since half-produced, is not being produced.
\ Alternatively it follows that everything
\ Is in the process of being produced.
.
(i. e. There is no "being in the process of production" because there is no such thing as being half produced: So we cannot say things exist because we really directly can see their production. Nothing exist and change. )
.
(-- Assertion: Neither that which has been produced nor that which is unproduced is being produced. That which is in the process of production is being produced.
-- Answer: It follows that a sprout in the process of production is not being produced by way of its own entity, because that which is in the process of production must be posited as half produced and half unproduced. The produced part belongs to what has already been produced and the unproduced part to what is unproduced. There is nothing in the process of production with parts other than these existent by way of its own entity. If the produced and the unproduced are both considered to be that which is presently being produced, both past and future are also in the process of being produced. Alternatively, it follows that all three times are presently being produced, since all produced and unproduced things are in the process of production. )
.
L5: [2. Extensive explanation]
L6: [a. Refutation by examining that which is in the process of being produced]
.
\ ###
\ 367.
\ That which has the nature of presently being produced
\ Is not in the process of production,
\ Nor is that in the process of production
\ Which lacks the nature of presently being produced.
.
(i. e. As something is conventionally being produced is continually change and is never the same from one moment to the other. Also the outcome is never sure. So we can never say that something is in the process of being produce. Nothing exist and change. )
.
(--If that which is presently being produced exists by way of its entity, is it considered to have its own nature or not? Both are unacceptable. it follows that it could not be the process of production.
It follows that anything which has the nature of presently being produced does not have the nature of being in the process of production. It follows that whatever does not have the nature of presently being produced is also not in the process of production, because that which is not presently being produced is contrary to that which is. )
.
L6: [b. Refuting the assertion that a thing existing between past and future is that which is in the process of being produced]
.
\ ###
\ 368.
\ For anyone to whom the two are
\ Impossible without an intermediate,
\ There is nothing in the process of production,
\ For it too would have an intermediate.
.
(i. e. So let's assume there is a step between the initial cause and the final effect along the process of production. This intermediate product also has its own production, its own "being in the process of production", and its own intermediate step. There would be infinite regress again, and it would explain nothing at all. )
.
(-- Assertion: That which is in the process of production exists, since it is located between the past and future. These two times may be posited in relation to what is presently being produced.
-- Answer: In any opponent's system in which there is definitely an intermediate stage without which the past and future cannot exist, that which is presently being produced could not exist by way of its own entity, since there would be infinite regress, in that anything in the process of production would require another intermediate stage and that one yet another and so on. )
88 / 117
.
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L6: [c. Refuting the assertion that a thing before it is produced is what is in the process of being produced]
.
\ ###
\ 369.
\ Since the process of production is the arising
\ of the produced through cessation,
\ That which is presently being produced
\ Appears to be a different entity.
.
(i. e. An intermediary step, an object representing the half-produced final product, would be the cause of the final product. But, as shown previously, no inherently existing cause could be found anywhere. There is no absolute cause; it could always turn out to be something else because of an infinity of other causes and conditions.
It is called a cause conventionally after the product is seen - and vice versa. They are two co-dependently arisen concepts. )
.
( -- Question: If the half-produced is not in the process of production, what is?
-- Assertion: "the 4 lines of this verse"
-- Since the process of production is, for example, the sprout's being produced through cessation of the seed, something in a state where its production has begun is said to be in the process of production. Thus what is presently being produced appears to be a different entity from that which is half produced and half unproduced.
-- Answer: If one could point to anything and say "This thing has been produced from this thing which is in the process of production," one could identify something in the process of production existent by way of its own entity in relation to the thing produced from it. )
.
\ ###
\ 370.
\ When a thing is produced there cannot be
\ Anything in the process of production.
\ If the produced is in the process
\ of production, why is it being produced?
.
(i. e. If it was sure that the final product was in the process of being produced then there would be no need to produce anything else from this step on. The intermediary step, as a cause of the final product would be useless because the final product would be sure to be produced because "in the process of being produced". )
.
(-- ab: However when a thing has been produced, there cannot be anything in the process of production which exists by way of its own entity, for what was in the process of production has ceased. A produced thing which has arisen from such a process of production and which would permit its inference does not exist.
-- Assertion: The produced is in the process of production.
-- Answer: "lines cd" + If the produced is in the process of production, why is it being produced again? This is unfeasible because it has already been produced. )
.
L6: [d. Refuting the assertion that the unproduced is what is in the process of being produced] L7: [(1) Actual meaning]
.
\ ###
\ 371.
\ A thing in the process of production is said
\ To be the entirely unproduced arising.
\ Since there is no difference, why should the pot
\ Not be considered as non-existent?
.
(i. e. The intermediary step, the object in the middle, as a cause of the final product, cannot be the same as the final product, nor different. It cannot be the same because it is not perceive as the same, and doesn't have the same characteristics and effect. Until it is totally produced it is not the same. Nothing stays the same even for an infinitesimal moment. Nothing exist and change. )
.
89 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
(-- Assertion: A thing which is presently being produced is said to be produced, for although unproduced, it is approaching production.
-- Answer: If a thing that is in the process of being produced is said to be produced because, even though it is entirely unproduced, it is approaching production, why should a pot while performing its function not be considered a non- functional thing? It follows that this is a reasonable assertion, since there is no difference between the produced and the unproduced. )
.
L7: [(2) Refuting the justification]
.
\ ###
\ 372.
\ That which is presently being produced,
\ Though incomplete, is other than unproduced.
\ Yet also since other than produced,
\ The unproduced is being produced.
.
(i. e. So there is no such thing as being produced, unproduced, half-produced, and so on . . . All of these are mere concepts attributed after the facts and based on mere conventions. There is no inherent production that can be directly observed. )
.
(-- The opponent argues that if neither that which is already produced and therefore functional nor that which is unproduced and therefore non-functional is being produced, what is being produced must be that which is presently undergoing production. To demonstrate that this too is not produced in and of itself, that which is in the process of being produced is next investigated. Is it identifiable as half produced or half unproduced? Does it already have an identity or not? Is it findable as something between the past and the present? Can one find anything, when an attempt is made in this way to identify the process of production and that which is being produced?
-- Assertion: There is a difference between that which is in the process of being produced and the unproduced. That which is in the process of production is said to be associated with the activity of production, whereas the unproduced is not necessarily associated with the activity of production.
-- Answer: Since a thing in the process of being produced is associated with the activity of production, you assert that even though it has not completed that activity, it is other than unproduced and future. Yet in that case, since a thing in the process of being produced is other than something produced, you are saying that the unproduced is being produced. ) .
L7: [(3) Necessity of accepting that the unproduced is being produced, if that which is in the process of being produced is produced
by way of its own entity]
.
\ ###
\ 373.
\ That which is presently being produced,
\ Though not yet existent, is later said to exist.
\ The unproduced is thus being produced --
\ But the non-existent does not arise.
.
(i. e. Until a product is totally produce it is as good as non-existent, but it is certainly not half-produced. )
.
(-- Since that which is presently being produced is other than something produced, you must accept that it is unproduced. You might claim that anything in the process of being produced exists as a thing, because, even though it did not exist previously, it has afterwards become associated with the activity of production. If on this account you say that an entirely unproduced thing associated with the activity of production is being produced, that too is incorrect. An unproduced thing, referred to as non-existent, has not attained its entity. It does not undergo production, because it is not engaged in that activity. )
.
.
\ ###
\ 374.
\ The complete is called existent.
L5: [3. Summarized meaning]
90 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ The uncompleted is called non-existent.
\ When there is nothing in the process of production
\ What is being referred to as such?
.
(i. e. The product is either existent (conventionally) or non-existent (conventionally), but there is no such thing as half- produced (inherently). )
.
(-- That which has completed the activity of production is said to exist as a thing, and that which has not performed the activity of production is said not to exist as a thing. If neither that which has nor that which has not completed the activity of production is in the process of being produced, what is being referred to as presently being produced? Anything in the process of being produced does not have the least existence by way of its own entity. )
L3: [II. Concluding summary of the refutations of inherent existence [of production / origination, duration, cessation] ]
.
\ ###
\ 375.
\ Since without a cause
\ There is no effect,
\ BOTH STARTING AND STOPPING
\ ARE NOT FEASIBLE.
.
(i. e. The Middle Way about production / dependent origination: there is no inherent production, no inherent origination, duration and cessation, because they are all dependent on other causes and conditions. Everything is empty of inherent existence because everything is dependently arisen - even production / dependent origination. Causes and effects cannot exist independently of each other. They are interdependent. They are co-dependently arisen concepts. There is no absolute (inherently existing) cause, effect, causality, production, origination, duration, cessation. But that doesn't mean that they are totally non-existent - or that we should drop right now the teaching of dependent origination completely. They exist as mere conventions, they are useful, they could be used as adapted skillful means. There is no absolute causality, but nothing is without a cause, and no cause is without an effect. They are dependent on the mind, but not totally from the mind. They are like illusions, but not totally illusions. They are like the figures seen on the clouds, or the swirls seen at the surface of the ocean. Everything is: not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither. Cause and effect, like the two poles of any duality, are not different or separate, not the same; not simultaneous, not sequential. )
.
(-- Through this investigation it becomes clear that causes and effects are interdependent, and that neither the arising of an effect nor the cessation of a cause occurs in and of itself.
-- Investigation by reasoning shows that there is no effect without a cause. Since cause and effect, then, do not truly exist and since the bases therefore do not truly exist, the sprout's starting to be produced and the seed's stopping to exist are not feasible by way of their own entity. Sutra says:
~ "Sentient beings, humans, those born from power whoever they may be.
~ None that were born and died here were born [inherently].
~ The nature of all things is empty like magician's illusions,
~ But the Forders are unable to recognize it. "
For instance, the men and women conjured by an illusionist cause the spectators of the magic, who think of them as men and women, to feel attraction and aversion. Though they also appear to the magician, he does not think of them in this way. They do not even appear to those who are unaffected by the spell. You must understand that these analogies apply respectively to the perception of common beings who have not understood dependent arising's emptiness of inherent existence, to the wisdom of subsequent attainment of the Exalted, and to the mediative equipoise of the Exalted. You should learn how conventional phenomena are established by conventional valid cognition and ultimate truth by conceptual and non-conceptual reasoning consciousness from the presentation in [Gateway for Conqueror Children], Explanation of [Shantideva's] "Engaging in the Bodhisattva Deeds" and so forth. )
L3: [The summarizing stanza:]
\ PRODUCTION AND DISINTEGRATION OF COMPOSITE THINGS
.
\ ###
91 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ ARE LIKE DREAMS AND LIKE ILLUSION.
\ When they are mere terms and mere imputation,
\ How could non-products be truly existent?
.
(i. e. There is no possible direct perception of origination, duration and cessation as taught in the Abhidharma; this cannot be used to prove the inherent existence of functional things, or the non-existence of others. This is merely another adapted skillful means. It is useful for beginners who do not have the requisites to be taught the subtle emptiness, but it should not be grasped on as if it was an absolute truth. Holding to this mistake would inhibit the full completion of the path and the attainment of complete Enlightenment. We need a gradual path composed of more and more subtle methods and wisdom; only then is it getting more and more in accord with the real non-dual nature of everything, and creating less and less cause for suffering. -- Things are not inherently produced, last, grow old, and then ceased and completely become non-existent. All of this is just like a magician's act. )
.
\ ###
\ This is the fifteenth chapter from the Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds, showing how to meditate on the refutation of that which constitutes products.
.
This concludes the commentary on the fifteenth chapter, showing how to meditate on the refutation of that which constitutes products, from Essence of Good Explanations, Explanation of the "Four Hundred on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas".
.
92 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
L1: [Section II - B : Showing how to meditate on settling [the procedure between] spiritual guides and students by way of [explaining] the purpose of the chapters and eliminating remaining counter-arguments by misguided opponents. ]
.
-- Chapter 16 - Refuting Remaining Counter-Arguments - The dharma door of non-duality and the irrefutability of the Middle Way - P. 289
.
L2: [Chapter 16 - Refuting Remaining Counter-Arguments -
The dharma door of non-duality and the irrefutability of the Middle Way - P. 289]
.
(i. e. SHOWING HOW TO MEDITATE ON SETTLING [THE PROCEDURE BETWEEN] SPIRITUAL GUIDES AND STUDENTS BY WAY OF [EXPLAINING] THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTERS AND ELIMINATING REMAINING COUNTER-ARGUMENTS BY MISGUIDED OPPONENTS.
-- So the problem is seeing things as truly existent.
-- The opponents cannot prove their own theses; and cannot find arguments to refute Madhyamika.
-- Things are not inherently existing, but that doesn't mean that they are completely non-existing. They exist in dependence.
-- No thesis could be proven. All theses are flawed. -- Holding a thesis is believing something is absolutely right, absolutely truly existent, that in a polarity there is a right side and a wrong side. All thesis are based on inherent existence, polarity, one of the four lemmas.
-- You can show the absurdity of a thesis, but never prove a thesis. -- Emptiness is a negation (of inherent existence) without affirming anything (emptiness of emptiness).
-- No reasoning, or analogies, can prove a thesis. -- Like, the reasons are to the thesis, what the parts are to the whole, what origination duration and cessation are to the impermanent things. They are not one, they are not separate.
-- The four positions are flawed. the Tetralemma: Although things are empty, they are non absolutely non-existent either. Things do not exist and then are empty. Things exist in dependence. --
-- This is not a thesis: Madhyamika do not advances a thesis of their own; they do not hold thesis that things exist, do not, or do and do not exit . . . And because of that, no counter-arguments can be found.
-- Emptiness of emptiness: Even emptiness is empty of true existence, because its objects are not truly existent.
-- Emptiness of Dependent Origination: There is a flow but no chunks in it; no real cause, effect, causality. These are all concepts dependent on each others.
-- Beyond dualities: It is not about choosing the right side in a polarity. Both sides are dependent on each other; there is no right or wrong side. Taking side is choosing a thesis. All theses are flawed.
-- Beyond the Tetralemma: Since all four theses are seen to be flawed, one should not accept any thesis of true existence. Refuting those four positions is the position of the Madhyamikas. And because of that they cannot be refuted themselves.
-- Two skilful means / antidotes: Like: you can use "emptiness" to show the absurdity any theory based on the reality of something; and you can use "Dependent Origination" to disprove the theory that everything is non-existent at all. But none of them is by itself a final absolute theory. -- Seems like the idea is to use those tools (Emptiness and Dependent Origination) to destroy any positions based on the four possible theories (things exist, do not exist, exist then do not exist, something else).
-- The Union of both: Ultimately one realize directly that things are empty because the dependently originate, and vice versa.
-- No dualities, no differentiation, everything should be seen as pure: Since the polarity between existent and non- existent is flawed, in emptiness everything is equal, identical; there is no objective discrimination possible. There is no absolute right in opposition to an absolute wrong. Everything is relative, dependent. Everything could be used for the path. Obsession with right and wrong is the problem. But don't tell this to an unprepared mind.
-- Seeing the emptiness of one thing is seeing the emptiness of all things -- they are all equal, everything has the same ultimate nature, no absolute discrimination.
-- What good is it to perceive emptiness?
