中觀論疏 3.30

3.30

The prose section consists of two parts: first, explaining this base verse, and second, explaining the preceding chapter-opening verse. The explanation of this base verse consists of two parts: first, a general explanation, and second, a specific explanation based on concrete matters. Within the general explanation, the first part explains the first half of the verse, which refutes [the idea] that conditions have a fixed nature.

Regarding the statement 'conditions are not determinately fixed': this indicates the lack of fixity.
From 'Why is this?' downward: this explains the lack of fixity.
'Conditions are established by relying on the effect': this concludes the lack of fixity.
Regarding 'Because the effect comes after and the conditions come before': someone says, 'Because there are conditions due to the effect, the effect falls before the conditions, and the conditions fall after the effect.' Another says, 'Conditions are established by relying on the effect: this means that because there are conditions due to the effect, conditions lack a fixed nature and thus conditions are not determinately prior. Because the effect comes after and the conditions come before: this means that the effect is due to conditions; the effect lacks a fixed nature, so conditions are not determinately posterior.'

Now, neither is correct. All of the preceding has concluded the explanation of the first half of the verse; from this text onward, the second half of the verse is explained. In explaining the second half, this text takes up the opponent's position: if, as explained in the first half, conditions come to be established entirely by relying on the effect, then conditions would not be prior and the effect would not be posterior. You now claim that the effect is indeed posterior and conditions are indeed prior, which is why it is cited.

Regarding 'If there is not yet an effect, how can they be named conditions?': this directly adduces the second half of the verse to refute it. If the effect is indeed posterior and conditions are naturally prior, since there is not yet an effect, how can they be named conditions? Therefore, if the first half succeeds in establishing conditions, it loses the order of conditions being prior and the effect being posterior; if the second half secures conditions being prior and the effect being posterior, then conditions turn into non-conditions. Thus, whether advancing or retreating, they are refuted.

From 'Just as with a vase' downward: this is the second cycle, a specific explanation based on concrete matters. This also first explains the first half; 'When the vase is not yet produced' explains the second half.

Regarding 'Therefore the effect is not produced from conditions': this second part concludes the meaning of this verse, which is to explain the preceding chapter-opening verse. Concluding the meaning of this verse means: through the two cycles above, conditions were challenged and shown to become non-conditions; therefore, the effect cannot be produced from conditions. Thus, the statement in the preceding chapter, 'is the effect produced from conditions?', cannot be established—how much less [from] non-conditions!

The reason this text appears is to resolve a doubt. The doubt asks: 'The chapter-opening verse posited both conditions and non-conditions; why does it now only refute production from conditions and not refute production from non-conditions?' Therefore it is explained: if even conditions do not produce, how much less non-conditions! There are no separate non-conditions; it simply challenges the opponent that when the effect has not yet arisen, they cannot be called conditions, so conditions turn into non-conditions. If even conditions do not produce, how could non-conditions produce? This reveals the intention of this verse not refuting non-conditions.

From 'Prior to [its arising], the effect in the conditions' downward: the second verse next refutes conditions, explaining the second half of the chapter-opening verse. As for the verse, it consists of two parts: the first half cites and scolds, while the second half challenges and raises a dilemma. 'Prior to [its arising], the effect in the conditions' is the citation. 'Both existence and non-existence are unacceptable' is the scolding critique.

'Unacceptable' has five meanings in all:
First, originally existence and non-existence were situated within conditions and non-conditions; since conditions and non-conditions do not produce an effect, where could existence and non-existence be placed?
Second, just as conditions and non-conditions above were unacceptable, now existence and non-existence are likewise unacceptable.
Third, this arises because the opponent subtly attempts to rescue their position from the prior refutation. The prior refutation stated: 'If you obtain the name