No More Learning

\ ###
\ 352.
\ Since the effect destroys the cause,
\ That which does not exist will not be produced.
\ Nor will that which exists be produced
\ Since what is established needs no establisher.
.
(i. e. The cause and the effect cannot be sequential, not overlapping, because then there is no causal link between the two and it would mean that the effect is without any cause, that anything could be produced from anything else. The cause and the effect cannot overlap either because if the effect is already existing at the time of the cause what need is there to produce it again? )
.
(-- Something non-existent at the time of its causes cannot come into being in and of itself. If it could, even totally non- existent things like rabbits' horns could occur, since they would not depend on producing causes. On the other hand, neither would something already existent at the time of its causes require anything to bring it into existence.
-- ab: Since the sprout cannot be produced unless the seed undergoes change, the process which produces the resultant sprout destroys the causal seed. Thus something which does not exist at the time of the seed will not be produced by way of its own entity. In general, even though a sprout which is non-existent at the time of the seed is produced, it is incorrect to accept truly existent production, for then one must also accept production of rabbits' horns.
-- cd: Since something which is established at the time of its cause does not need anything to establish it, that which exists at the time of its cause will not be produced. )
.
L7: [(3) Refutation by examining the time of production]
.
\ ###
\ 353.
\ There is no production at that time,
\ Nor is there production at another.
\ If not produced at that time nor another,
\ When will there ever be production?
.
(i. e. There is no inherent production because the exact time of production cannot be found: At the time of the cause there is no production yet; at the time of the effect there is no more production. And since those two cannot overlap or be separated, then when exactly is there production ? )
.
(-- A thing is not produced while it exists nor while it is non-existent. Since there is no other possibility, how can production be truly existent, for when analyzed nothing is findable.
-- At a time when the sprout itself exists there is no production, since it does not need to be produced. Other than that, when it does not exist there is no production, since it cannot be produced. If it is not produced at that time nor at the other, when will there ever be production? There cannot be a time of production. )
.
L7: [(4) Refutation by examining the thing itself and another thing]
82 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ Just as there is no production
\ Of that as the thing it is,
\ Neither is it produced
\ As something else.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent production because the cause and the effect cannot be the same, nor different. If they are the same there is no need for production; if they are different then they have no causal link. )
.
(-- Assertion: Milk turning into something which is curd constitutes production.
-- Answer: That is incorrect
-- Since something which exists as milk does not need to become milk, there is no production. Neither is that milk produced as something else, i. e. curd, for the two are different entities.
-- see Karikas 13 -- Nothing is being produced, and nothing is changing into something else. For example, when we say "milk changes into curds"; it is not milk that is curds, so milk has not changed. Like "milk becoming curd"; it is not "milk" existing as "curds". It is not the same continuing. It is about the duality "existence" vs "other-existence"; neither exist independently. )
.
L6: [b. Refutation by examining the beginning, middle and end]
.
\ ###
\ 355.
\ The first, intermediate and last
\ Are not possible prior to production.
\ How can each begin
\ Without the other two?
.
(i. e. There is no inherent production because origination, duration and cessation are not independent - they cannot exist before a product, nor exist independently of each other: A product is defined as having those three absolute characteristics: origination, duration, cessation. To be inherently existing those three characteristics have to be able to exist independently, on their own. But they cannot exist before the product; they are dependent on a product. And they cannot exist independently of each other because a product need to have those three to be a product. They have no real existence on their own, they are empty of inherent existence because co-dependently arisen concepts. We would never be able to see them directly contrary to what the Abhidharma say the Yogis can do. )
.
(-- Do the three characteristics -- production, duration and disintegration -- occur sequentially? They cannot, for they are simultaneous aspects of an on-going process, dependent on one another. Unless a thing has all three of these features, it cannot be a product.
-- There is no inherent production for the following reason too:
-- ab: First production, then duration and lastly disintegration are not possible prior to production, because that which is unproduced cannot have production, duration and disintegration.
-- Assertion: Production while a thing is being produced, duration while it lasts and disintegration when it disintegrates exists consecutively by way of their own entity.
-- cd: How could each at its particular time begin without the other two? Duration and disintegration are impossible without production. The same applies to the other two. Moreover a product is not feasible without any one of these characteristics. )
.
L6: [c. Refutation by examining both self and other]
.
\ ###
\ 356.
\ The thing itself does not occur
\ Without other things.
\ Thus there is no coming into existence
\ Either from self or from other.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent production because the cause and the effect cannot be the same (self-production), nor different (other production). Never has anything been seen to originate from self, from others, from both, or from neither. In the case of self there is no need for production. In the case of other, how could there be production; if that
83 / 117
.
\ ###
\ 359.
\ A present thing does not
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
was the case anything would originate from anything else. )
.
(-- Moreover inherent production is impossible, since things are not produced from themselves, i. e. from that which has the same nature, nor from that which has a different nature, for neither have inherent existence.
-- For this reason too products cannot be inherently produced:
-- The thing itself, such as a clay pot, does not occur without other things, such as clay, since it depends upon clay. The clay does not exist by way of its own entity either, since it depends on pebbles. Thus the pot does not come into existence either from self or from other, for since neither self nor other exist by way of their own entity, there is no inherent production. )
.
L6: [d. Refutation by examining sequentiality and simultaneity] L7: [(1) Actual meaning]
.
\ ###
\ 357.
\ It cannot be said to exist
\ Before, after or simultaneously.
\ Therefore production does not occur
\ Simultaneously with the pot.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent production because those three characteristics cannot exist before, during, or after the product. The product and its production are two co-dependently arisen concepts. . )
.
(-- Since production, duration and disintegration cannot be found to exist before, simultaneously or after that which they characterize, they cannot exist inherently.
-- Moreover there is no inherent production, since it is impossible to say that production and so forth exist before, after or simultaneously with the pot. Therefore the pot's production does not occur simultaneously with the pot by way of its own entity. If it did, since the basis and that which is based upon it would be co-existent, it would follow that the pot had been produced, for it must exist even as it is approaching production. )
.
L7: [(2) Refuting proof of inherent production]
.
\ ###
\ 358.
\ That which was previously produced
\ Was not old when first produced.
\ Also that which afterwards has been
\ Constantly produced is not old.
.
(i. e. No real duration or getting old: a product do not last and get old. As it conventionally get old it never stays the same, it continually changes. There is no duration of the same product. Nothing is produced and last. Nothing exist and change. )
.
(-- Even aging is relative, for a product constantly undergoes production.
-- Assertion: The pot's production exists, for without it there could be no oldness and so forth, but there is oldness characterized by cessation.
-- That is incorrect.
-- The previously produced pot was not old when first produced because at that time it was new. A previously produced thing does not grow by way of its own entity. Nor is that old which afterwards has constantly been produced, for also at that time it is new. Since afterward it is newly produced, it will not become old by way of its own entity. Furthermore, by refuting production existent by way of its own entity, oldness existent by way of its own entity is refuted, but mere [conventional] oldness is accepted in our system too. )
.
L6: [e. Refutation by examining the three times]
84 / 117
Aryadeva - The Treatise of the Four Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas [3. 2]
\ Come into existence from itself,
\ Not come into existence from the future,
\ And also not from the past.
.
(i. e. There is no inherent production because there is no possible production in the present, the future or the past. The cause and the effect cannot be simultaneous, not sequentially in any order. Production is like an illusion. The product is like an illusion. The three characteristics are like illusions. All part of a conceptual system, an elaborate mental fabrications trying to justify inherent existence, and to control the apparent world. )
.
(-- Since there is no inherent production in any of the three times, production does not truly exist.
-- Since cause and effect are not simultaneous, a present thing does not come into existence from its present self. Nor does it come into existence from the future, not from the past. 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.