十二門論 觀因果門第九

The ninth of the Twelve Gates has the fewest words. The treatise author opens with “next” and closes with “how much more so the self?” Between them he does only one thing.

The First Eight Gates Have Already Driven the Claim into a Corner

The person being questioned still has one move: if the effect is not within the conditions, say that it comes from elsewhere. Ordinary thought already works this way—if it is not in this box, it must be in another. The latter half of the author’s answer is set precisely against this move: “nor does it come from elsewhere.”

The Verse Closes Both Boxes Together

“Among the multitude of conditions, the effect is ultimately unobtainable; nor does it come from elsewhere—how, then, could an effect exist?”

“Ultimately” does not mean that it cannot be found for the moment. The final line is a question, not a declaration: when you say that an effect exists, to what does that word point?

The Author Does Not Explain the First Box Again

“Whether within each condition individually or within the conjunction of the conditions, no effect exists”—both the individual and the combined must be stated for no crack to remain. Why no effect exists is given in only three words: “as explained before.” The short gate is not thin; it stands upon the foundations of the gates before it.

The Second Box Incurs a Debt

If the effect truly came from elsewhere, the account would have two charges: “it would not arise from causes and conditions”—the conditions did not produce it and thus are not its causes and conditions; and “the conjunction of the conditions would have no efficacy”—if a finished thing is carried in, whether the conditions assemble is irrelevant. In trying to preserve the effect, one forfeits causality and conjunction.

The Word Empty Falls upon “Precisely”

“If the effect is absent among the multitude of conditions and does not come from elsewhere, that precisely is emptiness.” The author does not infer emptiness from this; this itself is emptiness. What is empty is the effect whose location could supposedly be indicated, not karmic result and not a sprout arising from a seed.

The Final Three Steps

“Because the effect is empty, all conditioned dharmas are empty; because conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are empty too; since conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, how much more so the self?”

Its entrance differs from the first gate, but its conclusion is word for word the same. The gate closes, yet the final line remains a question—leaving the reader to look for where that self depends.

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

1. Statement of the Principle and Verse

〔T30 0165b26〕 The treatise author next says: again, all dharmas are empty.

Why is this said? Because dharmas themselves possess no intrinsic nature and do not come from anywhere else. As the verse states:

Among the multitude of conditions, the effect is ultimately unobtainable; nor does it come from elsewhere—how, then, could an effect exist?

2. First Test: No Effect Exists among the Multitude of Conditions

Whether one considers each condition individually or the conjunction of the multitude of conditions, no effect exists in either. This has already been explained.

3. Second Test: The Effect Does Not Come from Elsewhere Either

Moreover, this effect does not come from any other place.

If it came from elsewhere, it would not be produced from causes and conditions, and the conjunction of the multitude of conditions would have no efficacy.

4. When Both Tests Are Exhausted, This Is Emptiness

If the effect is absent among the multitude of conditions and does not come from elsewhere, then it is empty.

5. From the Emptiness of the Effect to the Emptiness of Self

Since the effect is empty, all conditioned dharmas are empty. Since conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are empty too.

Since conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, how much more so the self?

At the ninth of the Twelve Gates, the author uses fewer words than in any gate before it. The entire gate contains a single four-line verse and only a few lines of extended prose; it can be read in one breath. Precisely because the gate is short, no further stage-setting is needed. Drawing on the force of the first eight gates, it isolates one question and presses it to the end: you say that an effect exists—where, then, will you look for it?

The opening word is “next.” It shows that the author is not beginning afresh. He has already refuted arising, marks, existence and nonexistence, and intrinsic nature; now he adds another approach. The statement of the principle follows at once: “all dharmas are empty.” Once the principle is stated, he immediately asks himself, “Why?”—on what basis is this said?

1. The Author’s Answer Already Contains the Skeleton of the Entire Gate

His answer is only one sentence: “Dharmas themselves possess no intrinsic nature and do not come from elsewhere.”

Only two clauses, yet they do two things. The first says that dharmas themselves possess no intrinsic nature, continuing the path established by the preceding gates. The latter is the one sentence genuinely added by this gate: nor do they come from anywhere else.

Why must this sentence be added? Someone driven by the preceding gates to concede that no effect can be found within the conditions still has one last step of retreat: perhaps the effect is not within the conditions but comes from elsewhere. The move sounds natural. People habitually imagine that a cause is one container and an effect is an object: if the object is not in this container, it must be in another. The author’s sentence questions that other container as well.

The entire gate therefore has two places to traverse: among the conditions and elsewhere. Once both have been traversed, the gate closes.

2. The Verse: Four Lines Establish Two Places, and the Last Is a Question

The author gives a verse:

“Among the multitude of conditions, the effect is ultimately unobtainable; nor does it come from elsewhere—how, then, could an effect exist?”

The first two lines concern the conditions. Attend to the word “ultimately.” It does not mean that the effect is temporarily unfound or that the wrong method was used; sought completely, it cannot be obtained.

The third line concerns elsewhere: the effect does not come from another place.

The fourth is not a declaration but a question: “how, then, could an effect exist?” If the effect is in neither place, what do you mean when you say that an effect exists?

The form of this question is the same brushwork as the verse in the first gate. The first asks, “how could this dharma exist?” This gate asks, “how could an effect exist?” Neither asks whether things function; both ask to what the word exists on your lips actually points. The author does not demand that you abandon cause and effect. He asks you to state where that effect is located.

3. First Test: No Effect among Conditions, and the Author Does Not Explain It Again

After the verse, the extended prose gathers the first place: “Whether within each of the multitude of conditions individually or within their conjunction, no effect exists, as explained before.”

This sentence contains two levels. First, “among the conditions” is divided into two sides: within each condition and within their conjunction. The distinction is necessary. If one says only that no effect exists within each condition, the opponent can reply that of course no single condition contains it—it exists only when all conditions gather. If one says only that no effect exists within the conjunction, the opponent can reply that although it is not manifest within the whole, each condition contains a portion. Only by saying “no effect exists” on both the individual and combined sides is the road genuinely closed.

The second level consists of three words: “as explained before.”

The author does not explain the argument again. The second gate, “Examination of an Existing or Nonexisting Effect,” has already worked through the path that what previously exists does not arise and what previously does not exist does not arise. An effect previously existent in the cause, previously nonexistent, or both existent and nonexistent has been examined alternative by alternative. Since that work is complete, this gate points back with only “as explained before” and does not repeat it.

Those words also remind the reader that the ninth gate cannot be extracted and read alone. It is one among the Twelve Gates; the force of what precedes is the foundation upon which it stands. Only because the foundation is already laid can this gate be so short.

4. Second Test: If the Effect Truly Came from Elsewhere, Two Things Would Be Forfeited

The second place is this gate’s proper topic, and the author writes more about it: “Moreover, this effect does not come from elsewhere. If it came from elsewhere, it would not be produced from causes and conditions, and the conjunction of the multitude of conditions would have no efficacy.”

First consider the supposition: the effect genuinely comes from some other place. Following this supposition produces two consequences.

First: “it would not be produced from causes and conditions.”

If a thing is carried in from outside, its origin lies outside and not in these causes and conditions. Then the claim that causes and conditions produce the effect becomes empty speech. Since the causes and conditions did not produce it, they are not its causes and conditions. This first consequence shows that the person claiming an effect comes from elsewhere has already discarded causality.

Second: “the conjunction of the multitude of conditions would have no efficacy.”

This reaches ordinary understanding even more closely. People speak of conjunction because conjunction has an efficacy: clay, wheel, cord, and potter gather, and something happens. But if the effect is a finished object transported from elsewhere, whether these conditions gather has nothing to do with it. Their conjunction becomes a display without function. To preserve the effect, you have instead forfeited the efficacy of conjunction.

Taken together, these two consequences mark the point where this gate differs in emphasis from the first eight. Most earlier gates ask whether the effect can arise; this gate asks whether it can come from outside. Once asked, the price of that retreat is precisely the two things its proponent most wishes to preserve: arising through causes and conditions and the efficacy of conjunction.

5. Both Tests Exhausted: “That Precisely Is Emptiness”

Having traversed both places, the author gathers them in one sentence: “If the effect is absent among the multitude of conditions and does not come from elsewhere, that precisely is emptiness.”

The weight of the sentence falls upon the word precisely. The author does not say that from these facts one infers emptiness. He says: this is precisely emptiness. Absence among the conditions and not coming from elsewhere are themselves the content of emptiness, not evidence for something else called emptiness.

One must also see what is being emptied here. From beginning to end, the author asks whether “the effect is ultimately unobtainable among the multitude of conditions.” What cannot be obtained is an effect-entity whose location could be indicated. He does not say that karmic results do not exist, that a seed does not produce a sprout, or that actions bear no result. The first eight gates use jars, cloth, and houses without ever saying that a jar cannot hold water. Since this gate continues them, what it empties is the same thing: an effect able to stand on its own and be lodged in some place.

6. The Final Three Inferences: From the Emptiness of the Effect to the Emptiness of Self

As the gate closes, the author’s final sentence makes three moves: “Because the effect is empty, all conditioned dharmas are empty; because conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are empty too; since conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, how much more so the self?”

First move: because the effect is empty, conditioned dharmas are empty. Every conditioned dharma occupies the position of an effect—whatever exists in dependence on conditions is an effect in this sense. Once the position of effect is empty, the entire class follows.

Second move: because conditioned dharmas are empty, unconditioned dharmas are empty too. The name unconditioned is established in contrast to the conditioned. When the side against which it stands is empty, the name on this side has nothing upon which to depend.

Third move: “since conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, how much more so the self?” The self is spoken on the basis of these dharmas. Once both sides are empty, nowhere remains that can be called self.

The order of these three moves follows the same line as the first gate. The first gate proceeds from the emptiness of conditions to the emptiness of conditioned dharmas, unconditioned dharmas, and self; this gate begins from the emptiness of the effect. Their entrances differ; their conclusion is exactly the same. That is why the treatise calls them gates: twelve entrances open upon the same ground.

What Can a Reader Carry Away from This Gate?

First, remember which sentence this gate adds. The first eight gates generally search for the effect within the conditions; this gate also questions “elsewhere.” When driven into a corner, the most common move is to relocate a thing somewhere else. This gate calculates the cost of that move.

Second, see the cost clearly. To say that the effect comes from elsewhere seems to preserve the effect, but actually forfeits both “it would not be produced from causes and conditions” and “the conjunction of the multitude of conditions would have no efficacy.” Preserving an effect by losing cause and effect is a poor bargain.

Third, attend to the words “as explained before.” A short gate is not a thin gate; it stands on the foundations of the preceding gates. The Twelve Gates gain force when read in sequence rather than selectively.

Fourth, attend to the final question. The author does not end by declaring that there is no self, but by asking, “how much more so the self?” The question remains so the reader must look for where that self depends.

Carried Forward: Illumination from the Treatise on the Middle, “Examination of Cause and Effect”

The preceding is the meaning of this gate itself. What follows is one cross-light from chapter twenty of the Treatise on the Middle along the same axis. The illumination is not this treatise; it simply records without deciding how the same doctrinal meaning is stated elsewhere.

The Treatise on the Middle, “Examination of Cause and Effect,” asks the same named question but follows a longer road. It begins by positing an effect in the conjunction:

“If an effect arose when the multitude of conditions conjoin, the effect would already exist in the conjunction; why would conjunction be needed to produce it?”

Qingmu explains: “If the effect already possessed a fixed entity, it should not arise from conjunction.” The chapter then turns to the other side:

“If no effect exists within the conjunction of the multitude of conditions, how could an effect arise from their conjunction?”

The alternatives of an existent and a nonexistent effect each receive objections. The chapter proceeds further to ask whether the cause ceases or does not cease, whether cause and effect coexist at one time, whether the effect has previously arisen, and more. This gate makes none of those separate divisions. It exhausts the issue through only two places—among the conditions and elsewhere—then directly makes the final three moves to self. What is examined is the same; the routes differ in detail.

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.