十二門論 觀緣門第三

The treatise author asks the opponent to point: where is the effect?

Places to Look

“Among the multitude of conditions, whether treated broadly or in summary, no effect exists; if no effect exists among conditions, how could it arise from conditions?”

Broadly means searching one condition at a time; in summary means searching the combined mass. The jar is not in the clay, wheel, cord, or potter, nor can a jar be extracted from their conjunction. There is no third place to search.

Names

The opponent asks, “What are called the multitude of conditions?” The author answers with finality: only these “four conditions produce all dharmas,” and “there is no fifth condition.” Once the number is exhausted, no extra one can later be added to save the claim. He explains each name: the causal condition refers to that from which something arises; the immediate antecedent condition to the preceding dharma’s ceasing and the next arising; the object-condition to the object recollected; and the predominant condition to the fact that because this exists, that can arise. Not one name stands on itself; each can be spoken only while pointing to another side.

Remove and See

If the effect exists within the cause, remove the conditions and it should remain. If it exists within the conditions, remove the cause and it should remain. If it exists in both places, it should be obtainable. Yet “sought through reason, it cannot be obtained; therefore it is absent in both places.”

Arising from Nothing Cannot Be Contained

“Why does it not arise from nonconditions? Because neither side contains an effect.” In the single respect of containing no effect, conditions and nonconditions are equal. Permit existence to arise from nonexistence and there is no reason to stop nonconditions.

A Name with Nowhere to Hang

“Because the effect does not arise, the conditions do not arise either. Why? Because conditions precede and the effect follows.” The prior is prior only relative to the later. Once the effect falls empty, the word condition has nowhere to hang. Thus, “because conditions and effect do not exist, all conditioned dharmas are empty.” From there unconditioned dharmas are empty too, and only one question remains: “how could a self exist?”

The question throughout is only this: you say it exists—point it out for me.

Composed by Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva and translated by the Tripiṭaka master Kumārajīva of Later Qin: Twelve Gate Treatise, fascicle one, “Examination of Conditions, Gate Three,” Taishō T30n1568. A marker such as 〔T30 …〕 at the start of a paragraph is a Taishō page–column–line anchor.

1. The Conditions of Dharmas Cannot Be Established

〔T30 0162b02〕 Next, the conditions of dharmas cannot be established. Why?

Among the multitude of conditions, whether treated broadly or in summary, no effect exists; if no effect exists among conditions, how could it arise from conditions?

Such effects as a jar do not exist within each condition individually and do not exist within the conjunction of the multitude of conditions. If they exist in neither of these two approaches, how can one say that they arise from conditions?

2. What Are Called the Multitude of Conditions?

The questioner says: What are called the multitude of conditions?

The respondent says:

Four kinds of conditions produce all dharmas; beyond them there is no fifth condition: the causal condition, the immediate antecedent condition, the object-condition, and the predominant condition.

The four conditions are the causal condition, immediate antecedent condition, object-condition, and predominant condition.

The causal condition is named according to the dharma that arises from it. If that dharma has arisen from it, is now arising from it, or will arise from it, this dharma is called a causal condition.

The immediate antecedent condition means that after the preceding dharma has ceased, the next dharma immediately arises in sequence. This is called the immediate antecedent condition.

The object-condition follows the dharma recollected. If bodily action, verbal action, or mind and mental factors arise because of it, it is called the object-condition.

The predominant condition means that because this dharma exists, that dharma can arise. This dharma is a predominant condition for that dharma.

3. None of the Four Conditions Contains an Effect within the Cause

In each of these four conditions, the effect is absent within the cause.

If the effect already existed within the cause, it should exist apart from the multitude of conditions; yet in fact no effect exists apart from conditions.

If the effect already existed within the conditions, it should exist apart from the cause; yet in fact no effect exists apart from the cause.

If the effect existed within both conditions and cause, it should be obtainable. Yet sought through reason, it cannot be obtained. Therefore no effect exists in either cause or conditions.

Thus, no effect exists within each condition individually and no effect exists in their conjunction. How can one say that the effect arises from conditions?

4. Since No Effect Exists among Conditions, Why Does It Not Emerge from Nonconditions?

Next:

If the effect originally does not exist among conditions but can emerge from conditions, why does this effect not emerge from nonconditions?

Suppose one says that although the effect originally does not exist among conditions, it arises from them. Why does it not arise from nonconditions? Neither side contains an effect. Therefore no causes and conditions can produce an effect.

5. Because the Effect Does Not Arise, Conditions Do Not Arise; Finally, There Is No Self

Since the effect does not arise, conditions do not arise either. Why? Because conditions precede and the effect follows.

Since neither conditions nor effect exist, all conditioned dharmas are empty. Since conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are empty too. Since conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, how could there be a self?

The Twelve Gates have reached their third entrance. The preceding gate asks whether the effect first exists or does not exist within the cause. This gate begins, “Next, the conditions of dharmas cannot be established,” shifting the discussion from cause to conditions.

Changing one word changes the matter. A cause is one; conditions are many. When asked whether the effect lies within the cause, one still has a route of retreat: it is not within this single cause, but exists only when the multitude of conditions come together. This gate walks precisely to that retreat.

The opening word “next” also deserves attention. The author does not begin a new enterprise but continues from the preceding gate. The preceding gate has questioned the cause; now he asks the same matter another way. Most of the Twelve Gates succeed one another like this. They are not twelve unrelated arguments but twelve entrances through which the same matter is traversed.

1. Opening Verse: Whether Treated Broadly or in Summary, No Effect Exists

The author first gives a verse:

“Among the multitude of conditions, whether treated broadly or in summary, no effect exists; if no effect exists among conditions, how could it arise from conditions?”

The words “broadly and in summary” must be seen clearly. Broadly means spreading out the multitude of conditions and searching them individually. In summary means gathering them and searching within the conjunction as a whole. There are only these two ways to search—either separately or together—and no third place exists. Only after saying “no effect exists here” in both places can the next line ask, “If no effect exists among conditions, how could it arise from conditions?”

The extended prose immediately seats the verse in its example: “Such effects as a jar do not exist within each condition individually and do not exist within their conjunction. If they exist in neither approach, how can one say that they arise from conditions?” The example remains the jar. Clay, wheel, cord, and potter form a sequence already counted in the first gate. Separately, no jar exists in the clay, wheel, cord, or potter. Together, no jar can be extracted from the mass of conjunction. These are the “two approaches,” the two places of search.

Someone may think: how could no jar exist within the conjunction? The jar obviously appears only after conjunction. This is not the author’s question. He asks: when you say that the effect arises from conditions, is that effect something already there, merely waiting for the conditions to deliver it? If so, indicate the condition in which it rests or its position within the conjunction. If it cannot be indicated, then the arising within “arising from conditions” is not the carrying out of a finished object. The first gate says a jar cannot stand by itself; this gate goes farther. Even the conditions that are supposed to deliver the jar cannot deliver a self-standing jar.

2. Asking the Name of Conditions: Four Conditions and “No Fifth Condition”

At this point the opponent asks an important question: “What are called the multitude of conditions?” You say that no effect exists among conditions; what exactly do you mean by conditions?

The question asks the author to make his claim final. He answers just as directly with a verse:

“Four kinds of conditions produce all dharmas; beyond them there is no fifth condition: the causal condition, immediate antecedent condition, object-condition, and predominant condition.”

First he says, “four conditions produce all dharmas,” then “there is no fifth condition.” With this sentence the author closes the gate on the opponent’s behalf. Conditions are limited to these four. Once the number is exhausted, no fifth can be added later to save the claim. If a fifth were permitted, then after each condition was refuted the opponent could always say, “there remains another that you have not refuted.” Once four is final, the refutation below is exhaustive.

The same four lines appear in the Treatise on the Middle, “Examination of Causes and Conditions,” as a citation by the opponent: “the causal condition, immediate antecedent condition, object-condition, and predominant condition; four conditions produce all dharmas, and there is no fifth condition.” Their sequence differs. This gate places “four conditions produce all dharmas; there is no fifth condition” first—exhausting the number before listing the names.

3. Each of the Four Conditions Has Its Function

The author next explains each name in turn. All four are spoken in terms of function; none states some nature belonging to the condition itself.

“The causal condition is named according to the dharma arising from it. If that dharma has arisen from it, is now arising from it, or will arise from it, this dharma is called a causal condition.” The causal condition is named by reference to “that from which something arises.” The effect has arisen, is arising, or will arise from it. All three times are stated, meaning that the name hangs upon the side of the effect throughout.

“The immediate antecedent condition means that after the preceding dharma has ceased, the next dharma arises in sequence.” A prior dharma ceases and the next immediately arises. The words “has ceased” are exactly where this condition receives its name.

“The object-condition follows the dharma recollected. If bodily action, verbal action, or mind and mental factors arise because of it, it is called the object-condition.” The object-condition is the object recollected. Attend especially to the words “follows the dharma recollected.” An object is called a condition because a recollecting mind apprehends it; if no one recollects it, it is no one’s object-condition. The author names three things it can initiate—bodily action, verbal action, and mind with mental factors—moving from body and speech through mind, showing this condition’s broad reach.

“The predominant condition means that because this dharma exists, that dharma can arise. This dharma is a predominant condition for that dharma.” A predominant condition assists completion: because this dharma exists, that dharma can arise. The sentence makes this clearest—“this dharma is a predominant condition for that dharma.” The name hangs not upon this dharma alone, but upon its relation “for that dharma.”

After reading all four definitions, one matter becomes visible: not one of the four names stands on itself. Each must point to another side to be spoken. The causal condition points to what is produced, the immediate antecedent condition to what next arises, the object-condition to the apprehending mind, and the predominant condition to that other dharma. Since the names are established this way, the author’s next question is: where exactly is the effect to which they point?

4. In Every Case the Effect Is Absent from the Cause: Apart from Conditions No Effect, Apart from Cause No Effect

The author gathers them in one sentence: “In each of these four conditions, the effect is absent within the cause.” He then tests this through three sections.

“If the effect existed within the cause, it should exist apart from the multitude of conditions; yet in fact no effect exists apart from conditions.” You say the effect already rests within the cause. Remove the other conditions, then, and it should remain. If a jar truly lies hidden in the lump of clay, no wheel, cord, or potter should be needed; the jar should still emerge. In fact it does not.

“If the effect existed within the conditions, it should exist apart from the cause; yet in fact no effect exists apart from the cause.” Conversely, if the effect rests within the conditions, remove the cause and it should remain. In fact it does not.

“If the effect existed in both conditions and cause, it should be obtainable. Yet sought through reason, it cannot be obtained. Therefore it is absent in both places.” Finally, cause and conditions are taken together. If the effect exists in both places, it should be obtainable; searched rationally, it is not. Thus, “it is absent in both places.”

After completing the three tests, the author restates the verse: “Thus, no effect exists within each condition individually and none exists within their conjunction. How can one say that the effect arises from conditions?” After going in a circle, the argument returns to the two places of broad and summary. However finely the four conditions are named, they cannot escape those two places of search.

5. Since No Effect Exists among Conditions, Why Does It Not Emerge from Nonconditions?

At this point the opponent still has one final claim: the effect originally is not within the conditions, but conditions possess the power to produce it. The author therefore gives another verse:

“If the effect does not exist among conditions but emerges from conditions, why does this effect not emerge from nonconditions?”

The extended prose states it more directly: “Suppose one says that although the effect is absent among conditions, it arises from them. Why does it not arise from nonconditions? Because both sides equally lack an effect.”

The point of the question lies in the words “both sides equally lack an effect.” Your reason is that what does not contain an effect can give rise to one. Yet no effect exists among conditions and no effect exists among nonconditions. In the single respect of not containing an effect, conditions and nonconditions are exactly alike. Once what lacks an effect is permitted to produce an effect, no reason remains to allow conditions but prevent nonconditions. The author therefore concludes, “Thus no causes and conditions can produce an effect.”

See what the author refutes here. He does not say that clay cannot become a jar while milk can. He says that once conditions are treated as something able by themselves to produce existence from nonexistence, the boundary between condition and noncondition immediately fails. A condition is a condition only by receiving its name in dependence upon an effect, not through possessing an intrinsic capacity to produce.

Together with the preceding section, this objection forms a two-jawed pincer. The preceding section tests the path of “preexistence.” If the effect already exists in the cause or conditions, it should remain when the others are removed, yet it does not. This section tests the path of “prior nonexistence.” If the effect does not first exist among conditions but the conditions nevertheless produce it, then nonconditions also do not contain it and should likewise produce. Preexistence fails; prior nonexistence fails. Since there is no third claim, conditions have nowhere from which to establish a power to produce an effect.

This pincer is the return here of the preceding gate’s topic, “Examination of an Existing or Nonexisting Effect.” That gate asks through the cause whether the effect exists or not; this gate asks through conditions whether what is absent can emerge from them. The form of the question is the same, while its object differs. That one question works in both places shows that what is refuted is not one specific thesis, but the thought behind the thesis that “it is simply thus of itself.”

6. Because the Effect Does Not Arise, Conditions Do Not Arise Either

The final turn is fastest and easiest to overlook: “Because the effect does not arise, conditions do not arise either. Why? Because conditions precede and the effect follows.”

Why do conditions fail when the effect fails? The author’s reason is that “conditions precede and the effect follows.” The name condition is spoken as prior to an effect: first the condition, then the effect. This is the order established by the person who speaks of conditions. Yet this prior is prior only relative to the effect. Without the later effect, the earlier prior falls empty. When the effect is empty, the name condition has nowhere to hang.

The first gate says, “because conditions are empty, dharmas produced from conditions are empty too,” moving from condition to effect. Here the movement returns from effect to condition. Read together, neither condition nor effect first stands by itself.

7. Proceeding All the Way to Self

The three concluding sentences reach farther with every clause: “Because conditions and effect do not exist, all conditioned dharmas are empty; because conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are empty too; because conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, how could there be a self?”

Since neither conditions nor effect exist intrinsically, all conditioned dharmas arising in dependence are empty. Once the conditioned are empty, the name unconditioned, established in contrast to them, is empty. Once conditioned and unconditioned are empty, the self spoken on the basis of those dharmas has nowhere to rest.

These three sentences follow the same road as the first gate’s conclusion, “thus conditioned, unconditioned, and self are all empty.” Only the entrance has changed. The first gate enters through intrinsic nature; this one through conditions. They are called the Twelve Gates precisely because their entrances differ while what they reach is not two.

What Can a Reader Carry Away from This Gate?

First, remember that there are only two places to look: the individual and the conjunction. Anyone saying that an effect arises from conditions must indicate where the effect is; the answer cannot escape these two.

Second, attend to “there is no fifth condition.” Fixing the number leaves no escape. When a treatise exhausts what can be said in this way, the sentence is usually a hinge.

Third, distinguish the use of conditions from a power intrinsic to conditions. The author never says that clay, wheel, cord, and potter are useless. What he rejects is that conditions themselves possess a capacity to produce existence from nonexistence.

Carried Forward: Illumination along the Same Axis

The preceding is the meaning of this gate itself. What follows is one cross-light from the Treatise on the Middle, “Examination of Causes and Conditions.” The illumination is not this treatise; it simply records without deciding how the same doctrinal meaning is stated elsewhere.

That chapter refutes the four conditions at much greater length. It first refutes the causal, immediate antecedent, object, and predominant conditions individually, one verse per condition, and only then says:

“Sought among causes and conditions, whether in summary or broadly, the effect cannot be obtained; if it does not exist among causes and conditions, how could it emerge from conditions?”

“If one says that the effect is absent among conditions yet emerges from them, why does this effect not emerge from nonconditions?”

These two verses have the same edge and almost the same wording as the two verses in this gate. Their forms differ. The Treatise on the Middle first refutes each of the four conditions and then gathers them; this gate omits those individual refutations and takes only the broad-and-summary search for the effect and the objection from nonconditions. It gathers the four conditions beneath one sentence: “in each of these four conditions, the effect is absent within the cause.” This gate has its own economy of text. The Twelve Gates was composed “to explain briefly the meaning of the Mahāyāna,” and here that brevity becomes visible.

Read together along one axis, each remains in its own place. The meaning of this gate is still governed by this gate’s own extended prose.