中論 觀六種品第五

The questioner’s thesis sounds perfectly ordinary: “The six elements each have a fixed mark; because they have fixed marks, the six elements exist.” The respondent does not begin with earth, water, fire, or wind. He begins with space.

Both Ends Cannot Be There First

“Before the mark of space exists, no dharma of space exists; if space already existed beforehand, it would be without a mark.”

If the mark comes first, the dharma does not yet exist; if the dharma comes first, there is an interval in which no mark points to it.

And the mark itself depends on something—“A place without form is called the mark of space.” It can be spoken of only in relation to form.

A Mark Has Nowhere to Land

“Within the marked and unmarked, a mark has nowhere to abide; apart from the marked and unmarked, it likewise abides nowhere else.”

A markless dharma provides no object for a mark: “If there is no ox, these marks have nowhere to abide.” A dharma already bearing a mark has no room for another: “The mark of fire does not abide within the mark of water, because water already has its own mark.” There is no third place.

Thus, “The marked exists because of a mark, and a mark exists because of the marked; the two depend upon one another.” The roles can also reverse: “Fire has smoke as its mark, while smoke in turn has fire as its mark.”

Refuting Existence Does Not Require Positing a Nonexistence

“When a thing destroys itself or is destroyed by another, it is called nonexistent.” Thus, “Nonexistence does not exist on its own but comes from existence.” Since existence does not stand, nonexistence has nothing on which to depend; the knower of existence and nonexistence is refuted along with them.

The conclusion gathers this into a single verse and carries away the remaining five elements with it:

“Thus know that space is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither marking mark nor marked; the other five are like space.”

However its mark is sought, it cannot be found; “the other five elements are likewise.” Earth, water, fire, wind, and consciousness need not each traverse the path again.

Why begin with this one? Qingmu asks and answers: earth, water, fire, and wind are easy to refute because they conjoin through many conditions; consciousness is easy to refute because suffering and pleasure as its causes reveal it as impermanent and changing. Space has no such mark, and “ordinary people merely hope that it exists.” Moreover, “space can support the four great elements, and consciousness exists through the four elements as causes and conditions; therefore, refute the root first, and the others are refuted of themselves.”

The Error Lies in the Instant of Grasping the Mark

“Those of shallow wisdom see dharmas as marked by existence or nonexistence; they cannot see the secure dharma in which views are brought to an end.”

The error is not in seeing but in “grasping the mark and asserting existence” or “grasping the mark and asserting nonexistence.” The wise use the very same arising and ceasing: “Seeing dharmas arise, the wise at once end the view of nonexistence; seeing dharmas cease, they at once end the view of existence.”

Qingmu turns the principle upon itself: “Even the view of the uncontaminated path is to be ended, how much more other views.” Even the view used to refute views is not retained as a final attainment.

Security is not another object placed beyond existence and nonexistence. It is where both the view of existence and the view of nonexistence have ceased.

Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva, author; the Brahmin Qingmu, commentator; Tripiṭaka Master Kumārajīva of the Yao Qin, translator. Treatise on the Middle, Scroll One, “Examination of the Six Elements, Chapter Five,” Taishō T30n1564. Paragraph-openers 〔T30 …〕 are page-column-line anchors in the Taishō canon.

I. Question: Each of the Six Elements Has Its Fixed Mark

〔T30 0007b06〕The questioner says: Earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness each have their own fixed marks; because there are fixed marks, the six elements exist.

The respondent answers as follows.

II. Verse: Before the Mark of Space Exists, the Dharma of Space Does Not Exist

Before the mark of space exists, no dharma called space exists; if space already existed beforehand, it would be something without a mark.

III. Explanation: A Place without Form Is Called the Mark of Space

Suppose the mark of space did not yet exist but a dharma of space existed first. Space would then be without a mark. Why? A place without form is called the mark of space. Form is a fabricated and impermanent dharma. If form has not yet arisen, then, because it has not arisen, its destruction cannot be spoken of either; at that time there is no mark of space. Only because form exists can there be a place without form; a place without form is called the mark of space.

IV. Question: What Fault Is There If Space Exists without a Mark?

The questioner says: What fault would there be in simply allowing space to exist without a mark?

V. Verse: A Markless Dharma Exists Nowhere

The respondent says:

This markless dharma exists nowhere at all; within a markless dharma, a mark has nothing that it can mark.

VI. Explanation: No Markless Dharma Can Be Found among Permanent or Impermanent Dharmas

Search among permanent and impermanent dharmas for a dharma without a mark, and none can be found. As the debater says, this exists and that does not; without relying on marks, how could one know that each has its own mark? Thus, arising, abiding, and ceasing are the marks of conditioned dharmas, while the absence of arising, abiding, and ceasing is the mark of unconditioned dharmas. If space had no mark, there would be no space. If one says that it first lacked a mark and was only later marked by a mark that arrived, that also is incorrect. Since it initially had no mark, there was no dharma that could be marked. Why is this?

VII. Verse: A Mark Abides in Neither the Marked nor the Unmarked

Within a dharma that has a mark or one that has no mark, a mark has nowhere to abide; apart from the marked and unmarked, it likewise abides nowhere else.

VIII. Explanation: The Mark of an Ox, Water and Fire, and the Fault of Being Uncaused

A fleshy hump, horns, hair at the end of the tail, and a dewlap hanging beneath the neck are called the marks of an ox. Apart from these marks, there is no ox. Since there is no ox, these marks have nowhere to abide. Thus it is said: within a markless dharma, a mark has nothing it can mark. A mark likewise cannot abide within a dharma that already has a mark, because the dharma already possesses its own mark. The mark of fire cannot abide within the mark of water, for water already possesses its own mark. Moreover, if a mark could abide within a markless dharma, it would be uncaused. “Uncaused” means that a mark exists although no such dharma originally existed. Mark, marked, and permanent mark are all established through dependence. Apart from the two classes, dharmas with a mark and dharmas without a mark, there is no third place that could be marked. Thus the verse says: apart from the marked and unmarked, it likewise abides nowhere else. Again:

IX. Verse: If Either Mark or Marked Fails, the Other Fails as Well

Because there is no dharma of marking, there is no dharma that is marked; because there is no dharma that is marked, there is likewise no dharma of marking.

X. Explanation: The Two Depend upon Each Other

Since a mark has nowhere to abide, there is no dharma that is marked; because there is no dharma that is marked, there is no mark either. Why? The marked exists because of a mark, and a mark exists because of the marked. The two depend upon one another.

XI. Verse: Apart from Mark and Marked, There Is No Further Thing

Thus, there is now no marking mark, nor anything that is marked; apart from mark and marked, there is no further thing.

XII. Explanation: All Dharmas Are Included within Mark and Marked

When causes and conditions are examined from beginning to end, mark and marked are definitively unfindable. Since these two cannot be found, all dharmas are absent as well. All dharmas are included within these two, mark and marked: sometimes this one functions as the mark and that one as the marked; at other times the roles reverse, and that one functions as the mark and this one as the marked. Fire, for example, has smoke as its mark, while smoke in turn has fire as its mark.

XIII. Question: Since Existence Is Absent, Nonexistence Should Exist

The questioner says: If there is no existence, then nonexistence should exist.

XIV. Verse: If Even Existence Is Absent, Where Could Nonexistence Be?

If existence itself does not exist, how could nonexistence exist? Since both existence and nonexistence are absent, who is it that knows existence and nonexistence?

XV. Explanation: Nonexistence Does Not Exist on Its Own but Comes from Existence

When a thing either destroys itself or is destroyed by another thing, it is called nonexistent. Nonexistence does not exist on its own but comes from existence. Thus it is said: if existence itself does not exist, how could nonexistence exist? Even what the eye sees and the ear hears cannot be found—how much less a nonexistent thing.

XVI. Question: Then There Should Be Someone Who Knows Existence and Nonexistence

The questioner says: Since nonexistence is also absent because existence is absent, there should then be someone who knows existence and nonexistence.

The respondent says: If such a knower existed, would this person be within existence or within nonexistence? Since existence and nonexistence have been refuted, the knower is refuted together with them.

XVII. Verse: Space Is Neither Existent nor Nonexistent; the Other Five Are Like Space

Thus one should know: space is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither marking mark nor marked; the other five elements are like space.

XVIII. Explanation: However Its Mark Is Sought, It Cannot Be Found

Just as the mark of space cannot be found however it is sought, so too with the other five elements.

XIX. Question: Space Is Neither First nor Last—Why Refute It First?

The questioner says: Space is neither first nor last among the six elements. Why is it refuted first?

The respondent says: Earth, water, fire, and wind are formed through the conjunction of many conditions and are therefore easy to refute. Because consciousness takes suffering and pleasure as causes, it can be seen to be impermanent and changing and is likewise easy to refute. Space has no such mark; ordinary people merely hope that it exists, and so it is refuted first. Moreover, space is said to support the four great elements, while consciousness exists through the four elements as causes and conditions. Thus, refute the root first, and the others are refuted of themselves.

XX. Question: Everyone in the World Sees Existence and Nonexistence—Why Do You Alone Oppose the World?

〔T30 0008a03〕The questioner says: Everyone in the world sees dharmas as existent or nonexistent. Why do you alone oppose the world and say that nothing is seen?

XXI. Verse: Those of Shallow Wisdom See Existence and Nonexistence and Cannot See the Secure Dharma That Ends Views

The respondent says:

When those of shallow wisdom see dharmas, they see only the marks of existence or nonexistence; such people cannot see the secure dharma in which views are brought to an end.

XXII. Explanation: Seeing Arising, the Wise End the View of Nonexistence; Seeing Cessation, They End the View of Existence

If a person has not yet attained the path and does not see the true mark of dharmas, craving and views condition the arising of all kinds of proliferation. Seeing a dharma arise, such a person calls it existent, grasps that mark, and asserts existence; seeing a dharma cease, such a person calls it annihilated, grasps that mark, and asserts nonexistence. Seeing dharmas arise, a wise person at once ends the view of nonexistence; seeing dharmas cease, a wise person at once ends the view of existence. Thus, although all dharmas are seen, they are like illusions and dreams. Even the view of the uncontaminated path is to be ended, how much more other views. Therefore, one who does not see the secure dharma in which views are brought to an end falls into the two extremes of seeing existence and seeing nonexistence.

We recognize things by their marks. What is hard is earth, what is wet water, what is warm fire, and what moves wind. After recognizing them this way for long enough, a principle naturally forms in the mind: since each has its own mark, each must be its own thing.

The questioner at the opening of this chapter says precisely this:

“The six elements each have a fixed mark; because they have fixed marks, the six elements exist.”

Earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness each possess a determinate mark; since the marks are determinate, the six things must naturally be truly existent. This question does not come from scripture but from daily life. Its force lies exactly there—it flows so smoothly that we do not notice it is a thesis.

The respondent does not begin with earth, water, fire, or wind. He begins with space. And his first sentence does not ask whether space exists; it asks: When did its mark begin to exist?

Which Exists First, the Mark or the Dharma?

The verse says:

“Before the mark of space exists, no dharma of space exists; if space already existed beforehand, it would be without a mark.”

The two lines form a pair of tongs.

First consider the opening line. If you wish to use its mark to prove that space exists, then before the mark of space exists, the dharma called space cannot yet be spoken of.

Now consider the second. Yet you also say that space was there first—it must be there before the mark has something to which it can attach. Very well: during the interval before the mark arrives, space is a thing without a mark.

What was brought in as proof turns back and leaves what it was meant to prove suspended. If the mark comes first, the dharma does not yet exist; if the dharma comes first, there is an interval in which no mark points to it. The questioner wanted mark and dharma each to stand securely and then support one another. The verse shows that both ends cannot be there first.

How the Mark of Space Arises: It Too Depends on Something

Qingmu next explains the side of the “mark.” What is the mark of space? “A place without form is called the mark of space.”

This may look like a mere definition, but it pulls up the questioner’s foundation. Qingmu says: “Form is a fabricated and impermanent dharma. If form has not yet arisen, then, because it has not arisen, it has not ceased; at that time there is no mark of space.” Form is fabricated and impermanent. If form has not arisen, its passing away cannot yet be spoken of, and at that time there is no mark of space. Only “because form exists can there be a place without form”; only then is there a place devoid of form to which one can point, and this place is called the mark of space.

The mark of space is not an indicator that exists by itself apart from form. It can be spoken of only in relation to form.

This step is crucial. The questioner originally treated the mark as the firmest evidence—the mark is fixed, therefore the dharma is fixed. Now the mark itself depends on something else: it can be spoken of only in dependence upon form. A thing that stands only by depending on another cannot prove a thing that stands without depending on another.

Then Grant That It Has No Mark—This Path Does Not Go Far Either

The questioner retreats a step: “What fault is there if space exists without a mark?” Why not simply allow space to remain existent without a mark?

The respondent does not say, “Anything without a mark must not exist.” Instead, he returns the matter to recognition: how will you point it out?

The verse says:

“This markless dharma exists nowhere at all; within a markless dharma, a mark has nothing that it can mark.”

Qingmu fills this out concretely: “If one searches among permanent and impermanent dharmas for a markless dharma, it cannot be found.” The dharmas people discuss fall into the permanent and impermanent, and both have their marks—“arising, abiding, and ceasing are the marks of the conditioned; the absence of arising, abiding, and ceasing is the mark of the unconditioned.” The conditioned is marked by arising, abiding, and ceasing; the unconditioned by their absence. People recognize dharmas by their marks. Consequently, there is no route to a dharma wholly without a mark: “If space had no mark, there would be no space.”

Another rescue remains: perhaps it first lacks a mark and later a mark comes to indicate it. Qingmu closes this as well: “If it initially has no mark, there is no dharma that can be marked.” If a mark is to arrive, something must be there for it to mark; if no mark can initially distinguish anything, there is no ready-made object waiting there.

A name may be posited first; the thing supposedly identified cannot remain empty.

Where Can a Mark Abide? None of Three Places Works

At this point the respondent changes the point of entry. Instead of asking about the dharma, he asks about the mark itself: where does this mark abide?

“Within the marked and unmarked, a mark has nowhere to abide; apart from the marked and unmarked, it likewise abides nowhere else.”

A dharma either already has a mark or lacks one; there is no third class. Each place is examined in turn.

First, a markless dharma. Qingmu uses an ox as an example: “A fleshy hump, horns, hair at the end of the tail, and a dewlap hanging beneath the neck are called the marks of an ox.” These together are called the marks of an ox. Then he presses in both directions: “Apart from these marks, there is no ox.” “If there is no ox, these marks have nowhere to abide.” Apart from the marks, no ox can be indicated; without an ox, the marks have nowhere to abide. Ox and ox-marks do not first exist separately and then claim one another.

Second, a dharma that already has a mark. “Within the marked, a mark likewise does not abide, because a mark is already present.” Since it already has its mark, another cannot enter. Qingmu uses water and fire as an analogy: “The mark of fire does not abide within the mark of water, because water already has its own mark.” Water already bears the mark of water; the mark of fire cannot enter it.

Third, suppose a mark could enter a markless dharma. Qingmu says it would then “be uncaused; uncaused means that a mark exists although no dharma exists.” Without a cause, a mark appears although the dharma was originally absent. Then he speaks an important sentence: “Mark, marked, and permanent mark are established through dependence.” Mark, marked, and even what is called a permanent mark all stand through dependence.

Once the three places have been examined, Qingmu concludes: “Apart from dharmas with a mark and dharmas without a mark, there is no third place that can be marked.”

This section is not the same sentence repeated three times. It seals three different escape routes: the object is absent, the position is occupied, and the mark appears without a cause. Once all three are closed, the thought that “a mark carries its own power of indication and later attaches to some already established dharma” has nowhere to land.

Mark and Marked: They Stand Together and Fail Together

The verse then carries the point through:

“Because there is no dharma of marking, there is no dharma that is marked; because there is no dharma that is marked, there is likewise no dharma of marking.”

Qingmu explains with utmost brevity: “The marked exists because of a mark, and a mark exists because of the marked; the two depend upon one another.”

We need to see clearly what “depend upon one another” means here. It does not mean that two ready-made things help each other stand—in that case each would still have its own body and merely lean on the other. It says: this pair of terms can be spoken only as they face one another. What marks is called a mark because there is something marked; what is marked is so called because there is a mark. Remove one end, and even the other’s name cannot be established.

The final verse gathers the entire mechanism through which the six elements were inferred:

“Thus, there is now no mark, nor anything that is marked; apart from mark and marked, there is no further thing.”

Qingmu says: “When causes and conditions are examined from beginning to end, mark and marked are definitively unfindable.” Yet all dharmas discussed by people “are included within the two dharmas, mark and marked.” He adds the most loosening sentence: “Sometimes the mark functions as the marked, and sometimes the marked as the mark. Fire has smoke as its mark, while smoke in turn has fire as its mark.”

Between fire and smoke, which is the mark and which the marked? It depends on which direction you look. See smoke from afar, and smoke is the mark of fire; see fire close at hand, and fire can also be the mark of smoke. The roles within the same pair can reverse. Their reversibility shows precisely that the two identities are not intrinsic natures carried separately within each thing but roles assigned within a relation.

Refuting Existence Does Not Require Positing a Nonexistence

The questioner now takes a road many people would take: “If there is no existence, there should be nonexistence.” If existence cannot stand, surely there must at least be a “nonexistence.”

The verse answers:

“If existence itself does not exist, how could nonexistence exist? since existence and nonexistence are both absent, who knows existence and nonexistence?”

Qingmu is concrete: “When a thing destroys itself or is destroyed by another, it is called nonexistent.” When something breaks down of itself or is destroyed by another, people call it absent. Thus, “Nonexistence does not exist on its own but comes from existence.” The word nonexistence is borrowed from existence; once existence itself has not been established, the nonexistence named through it has nothing on which to depend. He adds a counterquestion: “Even what the eye sees and the ear hears cannot be found, how much less a nonexistent thing.” Even visibly seen and audibly heard things are unfindable under examination, much less a thing that is absent from the outset.

The questioner’s final move is to preserve beyond existence and nonexistence someone who “knows existence and nonexistence.” The respondent is direct: “If there were a knower, would the knower be within existence or within nonexistence? Since existence and nonexistence have been refuted, the knower is refuted together with them.” The knower you establish must fall on the existent side or the nonexistent side; since neither can be found, the knower too has nowhere to stand.

Thus, the summarizing verse:

“Therefore, know that space is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither marking mark nor marked; the other five are like space.”

Qingmu passes over the rest in one sentence: “Just as the mark of space cannot be found however it is sought, so too with the other five elements.”

Why Begin Precisely with Space?

Someone asks well: “Space is neither first nor last. Why refute it first?” Space comes neither first nor last in the list of six elements, so why begin there?

Qingmu gives two reasons.

The first concerns difficulty. “Earth, water, fire, and wind conjoin through many conditions and are therefore easy to refute.” That the four great elements are brought together through many conditions is easy to see. “Because consciousness takes suffering and pleasure as causes, it can be known to be impermanent and changing and is therefore easy to refute.” It is likewise easy to feel consciousness changing with suffering and pleasure. Space is different: “Space has no such mark; ordinary people merely hope that it exists, and so it is refuted first.” It shows neither an obvious mark of conjunction nor change with suffering and pleasure; it is said to exist through a hope in the ordinary mind. The one whose flaw is hardest to see is exactly the one to examine first.

The second concerns sequence. “Moreover, space can support the four great elements, and consciousness exists through the four elements as causes and conditions; therefore, refute the root first, and the others are refuted of themselves.” One account makes space the support of the four great elements and makes those four conditions for consciousness. Following that path, examine first what is taken as the root, and the rest naturally loosen with it.

Together, these reasons show that space is refuted first for argumentative convenience, not because any one of the six elements is exceptionally important or unimportant.

The Final Question: Does This Not Put You at Odds with the World?

The final question carries the greatest force: “Everyone in the world sees dharmas as existent or nonexistent. Why do you alone oppose the world and say that nothing is seen?” Everyone plainly sees dharmas as existent or nonexistent. Why do you alone contradict the world and claim that nothing is seen?

The answering verse says only one thing, but it is where the chapter comes to rest:

“Those of shallow wisdom see dharmas as marked by existence or nonexistence; they cannot see the secure dharma in which views are brought to an end.”

Notice that the verse does not say “everything worldly people see is false.” It says that those of shallow wisdom, on seeing dharmas, see only the two marks of existence or nonexistence; stopping upon these two marks, they cannot see the secure dharma in which all views are ended.

Qingmu speaks with care: “If a person has not attained the path and does not see the true mark of dharmas, craving and views condition all kinds of proliferation.” The root of the difficulty is not seeing but craving and views—what is seen must be grasped. Thus, “Seeing a dharma arise, one calls it existent, grasps the mark, and asserts existence; seeing a dharma cease, one calls it annihilated, grasps the mark, and asserts nonexistence.” Arising and ceasing are things before one’s eyes; the error lies in the instant of “grasping the mark.” See a thing appear and at once press it into existence; see it disappear and at once press it into annihilation.

The wise are different. Qingmu says: “Seeing dharmas arise, the wise at once end the view of nonexistence; seeing dharmas cease, they at once end the view of existence.” Notice the ingenuity of the two sentences: the wise use the very same arising and ceasing. On seeing a dharma arise, they immediately know that all cannot be said to be determinately nonexistent; on seeing it cease, they immediately know that all cannot be said to be truly existent. The very same event nourishes two views in shallow wisdom and dissolves two views in wisdom.

Thus, the respondent is not disputing with the world over whether anything is “seen.” What is seen need not be cancelled; the grasping of its mark can be released.

At the close, Qingmu turns the principle upon itself: “Thus, although all dharmas are seen, they are like illusions and dreams. Even the view of the uncontaminated path is to be ended, how much more other views.” Even the view of the uncontaminated path is to be ended, much more the rest. This is the chapter’s softest and most thorough point—the view used to refute views is not retained as a final attainment.

The concluding sentence says: “Thus, one who does not see the secure dharma in which views are ended sees existence and sees nonexistence.” Security is not another thing placed outside existence and nonexistence; it is where the views of existence and nonexistence have both ceased.

What Can a Reader Carry Away from This Chapter?

First, notice what the word “mark” depends upon. “A place without form is called the mark of space.” Even space’s mark can be spoken only in relation to form. Whenever something in daily life seems “just naturally this way,” ask: in relation to what is this mark being spoken?

Second, refuting one side does not require filling the gap with the other. “Nonexistence does not exist on its own but comes from existence.” After releasing existence, one need not turn around and seek reassurance in a nonexistence; that nonexistence still borrows its name from existence.

Third, use arising and ceasing without grasping either. “Seeing dharmas arise, the wise at once end the view of nonexistence; seeing dharmas cease, they at once end the view of existence.” Arising and ceasing before one’s eyes are seen exactly as before; one simply does not press them, at that instant, into existence or annihilation.

Carried Forward: Jizang’s Mirror

The preceding is the meaning of the chapter itself. What follows lets the Sui–Tang Three Treatises tradition illuminate it from the side. The mirror is not the treatise; it offers another way to read the same verses.

Jizang’s Commentary on the Treatise on the Middle says that the Buddha, adapting to deluded beings, gives various teachings, sometimes naming the five aggregates and sometimes the six elements, while intending to refute the self. People stuck to the teaching do not understand no-self and instead cling only to dharmas; the preceding chapter refuted their confusion over the five aggregates, and this chapter removes their delusion over the six elements. He also reads the chapter sequence as a transition of gates: the preceding chapter clarified the gate of emptiness, and this one next teaches the gate of the signless. If one awakens through the gate of emptiness, there is no need for the signless; but because someone may grasp the mark of emptiness and thereby turn it into no gate at all, this chapter next refutes the mark of emptiness and lets one enter through the gate of the signless.

He also divides the eight answering verses into two sections: the first seven refute marks and clarify the gate of the signless; the final verse is a gate of admonition and refutation. Among the first seven, the first six refute space and the next extends the examination to the other five elements. The refutation of space further divides into five and a half verses refuting the dharma of space and half a verse refuting the person who knows space. The five verses refuting existence divide into four: the first verse and a half use what marks to refute what is marked; the next verse and a half use what is marked to refute what marks; the third verse refutes through the interdependence of mark and marked; and the fourth concludes. For the passage on the wise seeing arising and ceasing, he pairs arising through causes and conditions with ceasing when conditions disperse: since dharmas are seen to arise through causes and conditions, how could they be annihilated nonexistence; since they cease when conditions part, how could they be determinately existent?

This mirror supplies a classification for the chapter, names its gates, and joins its sequence to the Three Treatises tradition’s interpretive transition from the gate of emptiness to the gate of the signless. The classification and names of gates are Jizang’s additions, not the words of Nāgārjuna’s verses or Qingmu’s long commentary. The readings are recorded side by side without adjudication, each returned to its own place.