觀三時門第十一
Chapter 11: Contemplating the Three Times
復次，一切法空。何以故？因與有因法，前時、後時、一時生不可得故。如說：
Furthermore, all phenomena are empty. Why? Because a cause and the effect conditioned by it cannot be found to arise at the same time, before, or after one another. As it is said:
若法先、後、共， 是皆不成者，
是法從因生， 云何當有成？
If a thing existed before, after, or arises together with its cause, None of these is possible.
So how can a thing that arises from causes Ever truly come into being?
先因後有因，是事不然。何以故？若先因後從因生者，先因時則無有因，與誰為因？若先有因後因者，無因時有因已成，何用因為？若因、有因一時，是亦無因，如牛角一時生，左右不相因。如是因非是果因，果非是因果，一時生故。是故三時因果皆不可得。
If a cause existed first and then its effect arose from it, that is not possible. Why? If we say the cause came first and then the effect was produced by it, at the time when only the cause existed, there was no effect. So what was it the cause of?
If the effect existed first and then a cause came later, the effect would already be complete when there was no cause. What purpose would the cause serve then?
If the cause and effect came into existence at the same time, that also fails to establish a causal relationship, just like a cow's two horns that grow simultaneously—neither one is the cause of the other.
Thus, the cause is not the cause of the effect, and the effect is not the effect of the cause, because they would arise simultaneously. Therefore, no cause-effect relationship can be established in any of these three time frames—past, present, or future.
問曰：「汝破因果法，三時中亦不成。若先有破後有可破，則未有可破，是破破誰？若先有可破，而後有破，可破已成，何用破為？若破可破一時，是亦無因，如牛角一時生，左右不相因故。如是破不因可破，可破不因破。」
Question: "You refute the law of cause and effect, but doing so is impossible across all three times. If the 'breaking' exists first and then something 'breakable' arises later, but no breakable yet exists, then what is being broken? If the breakable exists first and then breaking occurs later, since the breakable already exists, what need is there for breaking? If breaking and breakable arise simultaneously, then they have no causal connection—like a cow's two horns, which emerge at the same time but do not depend on each other. Thus, breaking does not rely on the breakable, and the breakable does not rely on breaking."
答曰：「汝破可破中，亦有是過。若諸法空，則無破、無可破，我今說空，則成我所說。若我說破、可破定有者，應作是難；我不說破、可破定有故，不應作是難。」
The reply: "You, who attack and what is attacked, also have this fault. If all things are empty, then there is no attack and nothing to be attacked; now I speak of emptiness, and this becomes my teaching. If I held that attack and what is attacked truly exist, then your objection would apply. But since I do not say that attack and what is attacked truly exist, you should not raise this objection."
問曰：「眼見先時因，如陶師作瓶。亦有後時因，如因弟子有師，如教化弟子已，後時識知是弟子。亦有一時因，如燈與明。若說前時因、後時因、一時因不可得，是事不然。」
Question: "We see in the world that some causes come before their effects, like a potter making a jar. There are also causes that come after their effects, such as a teacher being known because of a student—after teaching the student, one later recognizes them as a disciple. There are also simultaneous causes, like a lamp and its light. If you say that causes before, causes after, and causes at the same time are all impossible to find, that is not right."
答曰：「如陶師作瓶，是喻不然。何以故？若未有瓶，陶師與誰作因？如陶師，一切前因皆不可得。後時因亦如是不可得，若未有弟子，誰為是師？是故後時因亦不可得。若說一時因如燈明，是亦同疑因，燈明一時生，云何相因？如是因緣空故，當知一切有為法、無為法、眾生皆空。」
Question: "If it is said that the potter makes the pot, this analogy does not hold. Why? If the pot did not yet exist, for whom would the potter be the cause? Like the potter, all previous causes cannot be found. Likewise, later causes cannot be found either. If there were no disciple, who would be the teacher? Therefore, later causes are also unattainable. If one says causes occur simultaneously, like a lamp and its light, this too raises the same doubt—if the lamp and its light arise at the same time, how can they be each other's cause? Thus, because cause and condition are empty, we should know that all conditioned phenomena, unconditioned phenomena, and all sentient beings are empty."