Padmakara Translation Group

Chapter 21 - An Examination of Arising and Destruction

.

1. Without or with arising,

There is no destruction.

Without or with destruction,

There is no arising.

.

2. How could there be destruction

In the absence of arising?

For then there would be death when there's no birth.

There's no destruction, therefore, when there's no arising.

.

3. How could destruction happen

Together with arising?

Death and birth do not take place

Within a single instant.

.

4. How can there be arising

In the absence of destruction?

For from all things

Impermanence is never absent.

.

5. How could arising happen

Together with destruction?

Birth and death do not take place

Within a single instant.

.

6. Since these can be established

Neither as occurring at the same time,

Nor as not occurring at the same time,

How are they to be established?

.

7. For that which has subsided, there is no arising;

For what has not subsided, there is no arising either.

For that which has subsided, there is no destruction;

For what has not subsided, there is no destruction either.

.

8. Without existent things,

There's no arising or destruction.

Without arising or destruction,

There are no existent things.

.

9. For something that is empty,

Arising and destruction are not tenable.

And even for what is not empty

Arising and destruction are not tenable.

.

10. That arising and destruction

Should be one thing and the same is inadmissible.

That arising and destruction

Should be different-this too is inadmissible.

.

11. "I see arising and destruction,"

If such a thought occurs to you-

Only through confusion

Are arising and destruction seen!

.

12. From things that are existent, existent things do not derive;

Existent things do not derive from nonexistent things.

Nonexistent things do not derive from nonexistent things;

And from existent things derive no nonexistent things.

.

13. A thing is not born from itself,

Nor from another is it born.

It is not born from self and other,

How therefore is it produced?

.

14. To say that things exist entails

The view of permanence or of annihilation.

For it signifies that things

Are permanent or transient.

.

15. One might claim that things exist—

That there is neither permanence nor yet annihilation.

For existence is a continuity

Of causes and effects that rise and then subside.

.

16. But if existence is a continuity

Of causes and effects that rise and are destroyed,

Since what has been destroyed does not arise again,

It follows that the cause has been annihilated.

.

17. If a thing exists by its intrinsic being,

It's impossible that it should cease to be.

At nirvana there must be annihilation

Since the existential stream is brought completely to an end.

.

18. If the last point [of existence] ceases,

The first point [of the next existence] makes no sense.

When the last point [of existence] has not ceased,

The first point [of the next existence] makes no sense.

.

19. If, as the last point is subsiding,

The first point is arising,

That which is subsiding would be one thing,

That which is arising would be something else.

.

20. If it is absurd to say

That what is ceasing coincides with what's arising,

Are [we ask] the aggregates in which one dies

The ones in which one takes one's birth?

.

21

Spanning the three times therefore

There is no existential stream.

But how can that which does not span the three times

Be an existential stream?

Garfield

Chapter 21 - Examination of Becoming and Destruction

.

1. Destruction does not occur without becoming.

It does not occur together with it.

Becoming does not occur without destruction.

It does not occur together with it.

.

2. How could there be destruction

Without becoming?

How could there be death without birth?

There is no destruction without becoming.

.

3. How could destruction and becoming

Occur simultaneously?

Death and birth

Do not occur simultaneously.

.

4. How could there be becoming

Without destruction?

For impermanence

Is never absent from entities.

.

5. How could destruction

And becoming occur simultaneously?

Just as birth and death

Do not occur simultaneously.

.

6. How, when things cannot

Be established as existing,

With, or apart from one another,

Can they be established at all?

.

7. There is no becoming of the disappeared.

There is no becoming of the nondisappeared.

There is no destruction of the disappeared.

There is no destruction of the nondisappeared.

.

8. When no entities exist,

There is no becoming or destruction.

Without becoming and destruction,

There are no existent entities.

.

9. It is not tenable for the empty

To become or to be destroyed.

It is not tenable for the nonempty

To become or to be destroyed.

.

10. It is not tenable

That destruction and becoming are identical.

It is not tenable

That destruction and becoming are different.

.

11. If you think you see both

Destruction and becoming,

Then you see destruction and becoming

Through impaired vision.

.

12. An entity does not arise from an entity.

An entity does not arise from a nonentity.

A nonentity does not arise from a nonentity.

A nonentity does not arise from an entity.

.

13. An entity does not arise from itself.

It is not arisen from another.

It is not arisen from itself and another.

How can it be arisen?

.

14. If one accepts the existence of entities,

Permanence and the view of complete nonexistence follow.

For these entities

Must be both permanent and impermanent.

.

15. If one accepts the existence of entities

Nonexistence and permanence will not follow.

Cyclic existence is the continuous

Becoming and destruction of causes and effects.

.

16. If cyclic existence is the continuous

Becoming and destruction of causes and effects,

Then from the nonarising of the destroyed

Follows the nonexistence of cause.

.

17. If entities exist with entitihood,

Then their nonexistence would make no sense.

But at the time of nirvāņa,

Cyclic existence ceases completely, having been pacified.

.

18. If the final one has ceased,

The existence of a first one makes no sense.

If the final one has not ceased,

The existence of a first one makes no sense.

.

19. If when the final one was ceasing,

Then the first was arising,

The one ceasing would be one.

The one arising would be another.

.

20. If, absurdly, the one arising

And the one ceasing were the same,

Then whoever is dying with the aggregates

Is also arising.

.

21. Since the series of cyclic existence is not evident

In the three times,

If it is not in the three times,

How could there be a series of cyclic existence?

Batchelor

Chapter 21 - Investigation of Rising and Passing

.

1. Passing does not exist without or together with rising. Rising does not exist without or together with passing.

.

2. How can passing exist without rising? Is there death without birth? There is no passing without rising.

.

3. How could passing exist together with rising? Death does not exist at the same time as birth.

.

4. How could rising exist without passing? Things are never not impermanent.

.

5. How could rising exist together with passing? Birth does not exist at the same time as death.

.

6. How can those that are not established either mutually together or not mutually together be established?

.

7. The finished does not rise; the unfinished too does not rise; the finished does not pass; the unfinished too does not pass.

.

8. Rising and passing do not exist without the existence of things. Things do not exist without the existence of rising and passing.

.

9. Rising and passing are not possible for the empty; rising, passing are not possible for the non-empty also.

.

10. Rising and passing cannot possibly be one; rising and passing also cannot possibly be other.

.

11. If you think that you can see rising and passing, rising and passing are seen by delusion.

.

12. Things are not created from things; things are not created from nothing; nothing is not created from nothing; nothing is not created from things.

.

13. Things are not created from themselves, nor are they created from something else; they are not created from [both] themselves and something else. How are they created?

.

14. If you assert the existence of things, the views of eternalism and annihilationism will follow, because things are permanent and impermanent.

.

15. If you assert the existence of things, eternalism and annihilationism will not be, because the continuity of the rising and passing of cause -effect is becoming.

.

16. If the continuity of the rising and passing of cause-effect is becoming, because what has passed will not be created again, it will follow that the cause is annihilated.

.

17. If things exist essentially, it would be unreasonable [for them] to become nothing. At the time of nirvana [they] would be annihilated, because the continuity of becoming is totally pacified.

.

18. If the end stops, it is unreasonable for there to be a beginning of becoming. When the end does not stop, it is unreasonable for there to be a beginning of becoming.

.

19. If the beginning is created while the end is stopping, the stopping would be one and the creating would be another.

.

20. If it is also unreasonable for stopping and creating to be together, aren't the aggregates that die also those that are created?

.

21. Likewise, if the continuity of becoming is not reasonable at any of the three times, how can there be a continuity of becoming which is non-existent in the three times?

Streng

Chapter 21 - An Analysis of Origination (sambhava) and Disappearance (vibhava) (coming to be and passing away) - 21 verses

.

1. There is no disappearance either with origination or without it.

There is no origination either with disappearance or without it.

.

2. How, indeed, will disappearance exist at all without origination?

[How could there be] death without birth?

There is no disappearance without [prior] origination.

.

3. How can disappearance exist concomitantly with origination?

Since, surely, death does not exist at the same moment as birth.

.

4. How, indeed, will origination exist at all without disappearance?

For, impermanence does not fail to be found in existent things ever.

.

5. How can origination exist concomitantly with disappearance?

Since, surely, death does not exist at the same moment as birth.

.

6. When two things cannot be proved either separately or together,

No proof exists of those two things.

How can these two things be proved?

.

7. There is no origination of that which is destructible, nor of that which is not-destructible.

There is no disappearance of that which is destructible nor of that which is non-destructible.

.

8. Origination and disappearance cannot exist without an existent thing.

Without origination and disappearance an existent thing does not exist.

.

9. Origination and disappearance does not obtain for that which is empty.

Origination and disappearance does not obtain for that which is non-empty.

.

10. It does not obtain that origination and disappearance are the same thing.

It does not obtain that origination and disappearance are different.

.

11. [You argue:] Origination, as well as disappearance, is seen.

[Therefore] it would exist for you.

[But] origination and disappearance are seen due to a delusion.

.

12. An existent thing does not originate from [another] thing;

and an existent thing does not originate from a non-existent thing.

Also, a non-existent thing does not originate from another non-existent thing;

and a non-existent thing does not originate from an existent thing.

.

13. An existent thing does not originate either by itself or by something different.

Or by itself and something different [at the same time]. How, then, can it be produced?

.

14. For someone assuming an existent thing, either an eternalistic or nihilistic point of view would logically follow,

For that existent thing would be either eternal or liable to cessation.

.

15. [An opponent objects:]

For someone assuming an existent thing, there is not [only] eternalism or nihilism,

Since this is existence: namely, the continuity of the originating and stopping of causes and product.

.

16. [Nagarjuna replies:]

If this is existence: namely, the continuity of originating and stopping of causes and product,

It would logically follow that the cause is destroyed because the destroyed thing does not originate again.

.

17. If there is self-existence of something which is intrinsically existing, then non-existence does not obtain.

At the time of nirvana there is destruction of the cycle of existence (bhavasamtana) as a result of the cessation.

.

18. If the last [part of existence] is destroyed, the first [part of] existence does not obtain.

If the last [part of existence] is not destroyed, the first [part of] existence does not obtain.

.

19. If the first [part of existence] were produced while the final part were being destroyed,

There would be one thing being destroyed and being produced [both at the same time].

.

20. If the one "being destroyed" and the one "being produced" cannot exist together,

Can someone be produced in those "groups of universal elements" (skandhas) in which he is [also] "dying"?

.

21. Thus, the chain of existences is not possible in any of the tree times [i.e. past, present, and future];

And if it does not exist in the three times, how can the chain of existences exist?