Exegesis of the Title Zhonglun
The treatise now turns its full analytical apparatus onto its own school's founding text's own name — three characters, Middle-Contemplation-Treatise, that between them contain an entire theory of how realization actually happens. Jizang asks why the fuller title is usually shortened to just two characters, in what order the three elements arise depending on whether one traces the path from a buddha's own realization downward or from a student's reception of teaching upward, and why, in the end, "middle," "contemplation," and "treatise" turn out to be three names for exactly the same thing.
1. The Brief Title and the Extended Title
Jizang opens the treatise's dedicated exegesis of its own founding text's name by distinguishing two attested forms of the title — the familiar two-character "Zhonglun," and a fuller three-character form that adds "contemplation" — and asks why the shorter form, without any explicit mention of contemplation, is nonetheless considered complete.
次別釋中論名題門。此論立名有廣有略。所言略者。但稱中論。故叡法師序云。中論有五百偈。龍樹菩薩之所造。而後但釋中論兩字。故名為略。問何故但稱中論不題觀耶。答中是所論之理實。論是能論之教門。若明理教故義無不周也。
Next, explaining in particular the gate of the title Zhonglun. This treatise's title has both an extended form and a brief form. As for what is called the brief form: it is simply called Zhonglun, "the Middle Treatise." Hence Master Sengrui's preface says: "The Zhonglun has five hundred verses, and was composed by the bodhisattva Nāgārjuna" — and thereafter explains only the two characters zhong and lun. This is why it is named the brief form. Question: Why is it called simply Zhonglun, without the character for "contemplation" (觀) included in the title at all? Answer: "The middle" is the underlying reality of the principle that is being discussed; "treatise" is the teaching-gate that does the discussing. Once both the principle and the teaching that conveys it have been made clear, the sense of the whole is already complete in every respect, leaving nothing further required.
所言廣者。加之以觀。故影法師中論序云。寂此諸邊名之為中。問答拆徵稱之為論。又云。觀者直。以觀辨於心論宣於口耳。問何故具題三字耶。答因中發觀。由觀宣論。要備三法義乃圓足也。
As for what is called the extended form: it adds the character for "contemplation" to the title. Hence Master Tanying's preface to the Zhonglun says: "Stilling all these extremes is what is named 'the middle.' Question and answer, breaking apart and pressing to the root, is what is called 'treatise.'" It further says: "Contemplation is direct: by means of contemplation one discerns within the mind; by means of treatise one proclaims through the mouth — nothing more than this." Question: Why give the full title as three characters? Answer: From the middle, contemplation arises; from contemplation, treatise is proclaimed. All three elements together are needed before the sense is fully rounded out and complete.
Tanying's preface here is the same preface already cited as a corroborating proof in Part 11 that the two truths are this treatise's own guiding doctrine — Jizang is drawing on the same short document twice, for two different purposes, which is itself a small piece of evidence for how carefully these founding prefaces were studied within this school. Note that "Zhong Guan Lun," the fuller three-character title, is essentially never used as this site's own title for the work — this collection follows the site's existing usage, already established on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā pages, of calling it by the brief form throughout.
2. Two Kinds of Sequence: From the Teacher's Side, and From the Student's Side
Jizang asks in what order the three elements of the title — middle, contemplation, treatise — actually arise, and answers that the sequence runs in exactly opposite directions depending on whether one traces it from the standpoint of the one doing the teaching or the one receiving it.
次第門。問此三字有何次第耶。答有二種次第。一者能化次第。二者所化次第。能化次第者。中謂三世十方諸佛菩薩所行之道。故前明中。由此道故發生諸佛菩薩正觀。故次明觀。由內有正觀故。佛宣之於口。名之為經。四依菩薩宣之於口。目之為論也。
The gate of sequence. Question: What sequence do these three characters follow? Answer: There are two kinds of sequence: first, the sequence from the standpoint of the one who transforms others; second, the sequence from the standpoint of those who are transformed. As for the sequence from the standpoint of the one who transforms others: "the middle" refers to the path traveled by all the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three times and the ten directions — hence "the middle" is named first. It is by means of this path that the buddhas and bodhisattvas give rise to correct contemplation — hence "contemplation" is named next. And it is because correct contemplation exists within that the Buddha proclaims it through his own mouth, which is named sūtra, while the bodhisattvas of the four kinds of reliance proclaim it through their own mouths, which is designated treatise.
約所化悟入次第者。稟教之徒因論識中。因中發觀。若望於佛。因教識理。因理發觀也。
As for the sequence of awakening and entry from the standpoint of those who are transformed: those who receive the teaching come to recognize the middle by means of the treatise, and give rise to contemplation by means of the middle. And with reference to the Buddha's own sūtra teaching, it is the same: one comes to recognize the principle by means of the teaching, and gives rise to contemplation by means of the principle.
The elegance of this passage is easy to miss on a first pass: from the teacher's side the order is middle, then contemplation, then treatise (reality gives rise to insight, insight is then spoken aloud), while from the student's side the very same three elements are encountered in the exact reverse order — treatise (or sūtra) first, then, by means of it, the middle is recognized, and only then does contemplation arise within the student himself. Realization and its transmission are the same three-part structure read in opposite directions, teacher outward and student inward.
3. Why Exactly Three Characters: Three Reasons
Having established the sequence, Jizang asks why the title settles on exactly three characters — no more, no fewer — and gives three complementary reasons, the last of which reduces the three characters to two underlying pairs: object-and-wisdom, and practice-and-speech.
次制立門。所以但明三字不多不少者。略有三義。一者諸佛菩薩凡有二德。一者自行。二者化他。中之與觀謂自行也。論之一字即是化他。自行化他義無不攝。故但標三字。二者化於眾生要必具三。一者有所悟之理。二者因理發觀。三者由觀宣論。故但明三也。
The gate of the title's own construction. As for why exactly three characters are made clear, no more and no fewer, there are, in brief, three reasons. First, the buddhas and bodhisattvas possess, in all, two virtues: first, self-cultivation; second, the transformation of others. "The middle" together with "contemplation" belong to self-cultivation; the single character "treatise" is precisely the transformation of others. Since self-cultivation and the transformation of others together leave nothing unincluded, only these three characters need be set forth. Second, transforming sentient beings necessarily requires three elements in all: first, a principle that is realized; second, contemplation arising by means of that principle; third, treatise proclaimed by means of that contemplation. This is why only these three are made clear.
三者以中對觀。是境智之名。以觀對論。為行說之稱。因中發觀故。以中為境。以觀為智。如說而行為觀。如行而說為論。以義唯此四故。名字但有三名也。
Third, pairing "the middle" against "contemplation" gives the names of object and wisdom; pairing "contemplation" against "treatise" gives the designations of practice and speech. Because contemplation arises by means of the middle, the middle serves as the object, and contemplation serves as the wisdom that knows it. Practicing exactly as one has been taught constitutes contemplation; speaking exactly as one practices constitutes treatise. Since the underlying sense reduces to just these four terms — object, wisdom, practice, and speech — the actual names given number only three.
The third reason quietly recycles the "object and wisdom" (境智) pairing already assigned as the Twelve Gate Treatise's own guiding doctrine in Part 11, now used here as one half of the deep structure underlying the Zhonglun's own title — a small sign of how tightly interwoven this treatise's technical vocabulary is across parts that might otherwise look unrelated.
4. General and Particular Senses of the Three Characters
Jizang now applies the general/particular distinction one final time — this time not to whole treatises but to the three characters of a single title. Spoken generally, each of the three characters — middle, contemplation, and treatise — can itself be called by all three names at once; spoken particularly, each keeps to its own distinct sense.
次論通別門。通而為言。三字皆中皆觀皆論。所言皆中者。理實不偏故理名為中。因中理發觀。觀非偏觀。觀亦名中。因中觀宣論。論非偏論。論亦名中。三字皆觀者。中是義相觀。觀是心行觀。論是名字觀。亦如三種般若。中是實相般若。觀是觀照般若。論是文字般若。三種皆論者。論是能論故名為論。餘二所論亦名為論也。就別而言。理實不偏。與其中名。智是達照。當其觀稱。論是言教。故目之為論。
Next, discussing the gate of general and particular senses. Speaking generally, all three characters are alike "the middle," alike "contemplation," and alike "treatise." As for why all three are alike "the middle": the underlying reality of the principle is not one-sided, and so the principle itself is named "the middle." Contemplation arises by means of this middle principle, and this contemplation is not one-sided contemplation either — so contemplation, too, is named "the middle." Treatise is proclaimed by means of this middle contemplation, and this treatise is not one-sided treatise either — so treatise, too, is named "the middle." As for why all three are alike "contemplation": the middle is contemplation with respect to the mark of meaning; contemplation is contemplation with respect to the mind's own activity; treatise is contemplation with respect to names and words. It is exactly like the three kinds of prajñā: the middle is the prajñā of the real character of things; contemplation is the prajñā of contemplative illumination; treatise is the prajñā of the written word. As for why all three are alike "treatise": treatise is what does the discussing, and so is named treatise; the other two, being what is discussed, are likewise named treatise as well. Speaking now in particular terms: the underlying reality of the principle, being not one-sided, is given the name "the middle"; wisdom, being what penetrates and illuminates, is designated by the title "contemplation"; treatise is verbal teaching, and so is called by the name "treatise."
The three kinds of prajñā invoked here — the prajñā of real character, of contemplative illumination, and of the written word — are a standard threefold scheme in Chinese Buddhist scholasticism for the relationship between reality itself, the wisdom that directly knows it, and the language used to communicate that wisdom to others. Mapping "middle, contemplation, treatise" onto this same threefold prajñā scheme is Jizang's way of showing that this school's own foundational vocabulary is not an idiosyncratic invention but continuous with a shared, recognized framework already used across Chinese Buddhist exegesis more broadly.
5. The Middle Gives Rise to Contemplation, and Contemplation Gives Rise to the Middle
Jizang now examines how the middle and contemplation generate each other in turn — the middle, encountered directly, produces contemplative wisdom the way a bitter cucumber produces fever on contact, while contemplation, applied to what beings mistakenly perceive as birth and cessation, uncovers the middle hidden within that very perception.
次明互發盡門。就中有中發觀。觀發中。緣盡觀。觀盡緣。所言中發觀者。如涅槃經云。十二因緣不生不滅能生觀智。譬如胡瓜能發熱病也。觀發中者。眾生本謂因緣是生是滅。不知是中。以正觀檢生滅不得。方悟因緣是中。此則因觀發中。
Next, making clear the gate of mutual generation and exhaustion. Within this gate there are: the middle giving rise to contemplation; contemplation giving rise to the middle; conditions exhausted within contemplation; and contemplation exhausted within conditions. As for what is meant by "the middle giving rise to contemplation": the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that the twelve links of dependent origination, being unborn and unceasing, are able to give rise to contemplative wisdom — just as a bitter cucumber is able to bring on a feverish illness merely by contact. As for what is meant by "contemplation giving rise to the middle": sentient beings originally suppose that causes and conditions involve real birth and real cessation, not knowing that this is, in fact, the middle; but by applying correct contemplation and examining this birth and cessation, one finds that neither can actually be established as real, and only then does one awaken to the fact that causes and conditions are themselves the middle. This, then, is contemplation giving rise to the middle.
緣盡於觀觀盡於緣者。凡夫二乘及有所得偏邪之緣。盡菩薩正觀之內。故名緣盡於觀。觀盡於緣者。邪緣既盡正觀亦息。故名觀盡於緣。緣盡於觀故非緣。觀盡於緣故非觀。非緣非觀。不知何以美之。強名正觀也。
As for conditions exhausted within contemplation and contemplation exhausted within conditions: the conditions belonging to ordinary unenlightened beings, to the two lesser vehicles, and to every one-sided, heretical case of something apprehended are all exhausted entirely within the bodhisattva's own correct contemplation — this is why it is called conditions exhausted within contemplation. Once these heretical conditions are exhausted, correct contemplation itself likewise comes to rest — this is why it is called contemplation exhausted within conditions. Because conditions are exhausted within contemplation, contemplation is thereby not, itself, a fixed condition. Because contemplation is exhausted within conditions, it is thereby not, itself, a fixed contemplation either. Being neither condition nor contemplation, and not knowing what else it could be called, one forcibly names it "correct contemplation" all the same.
The bitter cucumber (胡瓜) image is a striking and slightly unusual simile — most Chinese Buddhist sources use the bitter gourd (苦瓠) for exactly this point, that mere exposure to something is enough to trigger an effect without further mediation, and Jizang's version here should be read as a variant of that same standard image rather than a different one. The deeper point of this whole passage is that "the middle" and "correct contemplation" are not two separate things in a linear causal chain, one simply producing the other and stopping there — each is fully implicated in generating the other, in a loop that only terminates once every biased, one-sided condition needing correction has itself been exhausted, at which point even correct contemplation, having done its remedial work, does not remain as a separate fixed achievement.
6. The Middle and Contemplation Dissolve Into Each Other
The part closes by pushing the same "exhausted within" logic one level further — asking whether the middle and contemplation, like conditions and contemplation just discussed, can likewise be said to exhaust each other entirely, using the identical agent/patient dissolution already applied to sūtra and treatise back in Part 8.
問既得緣盡觀觀盡緣。亦得中盡觀親盡中不。答亦得爾也。中是智境。觀是境智。境不自境。因智故境。智不自智。由境故智。由智故境。境不自境。由境故智。智不自智。不自智則非智。不自境則非境。故是境盡於智。智盡於境。
Question: Given that one may speak of conditions exhausted within contemplation and contemplation exhausted within conditions, may one likewise speak of the middle exhausted within contemplation and contemplation exhausted within the middle? Answer: Yes, this too may properly be said. The middle is the object known by wisdom; contemplation is the wisdom that knows this object. The object is not self-established as object — it is by means of wisdom that it is called an object at all. Wisdom, likewise, is not self-established as wisdom — it is by means of the object that it is called wisdom at all. It is by means of wisdom that there is an object, and by means of the object that there is wisdom; the object is not self-established, and it is only by means of the object that there is wisdom, while wisdom is not self-established either. Since wisdom is not self-established, it is thereby not truly wisdom at all; since the object is not self-established, it is thereby not truly an object at all. Hence it may be said that the object is exhausted within wisdom, and wisdom is exhausted within the object.
問亦得緣發於觀。觀發於緣不。答由邪緣故得顯正觀。即是緣發於觀。由
Question: May one likewise say that conditions give rise to contemplation, and that contemplation gives rise to conditions? Answer: It is by means of heretical conditions that correct contemplation comes to be displayed at all — this is precisely what is meant by conditions giving rise to contemplation. By means of...
This closing exchange applies to "the middle" and "contemplation" exactly the same agent/patient dissolution Jizang used on sūtra and treatise in Part 8, right down to citing the identical logical pattern — "the object is not self-established... wisdom is not self-established... hence neither is truly what it was named" — that Part 8 traced back explicitly to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's own chapter on burning and the burnable. The final exchange breaks off mid-sentence in the source text itself, on the question of whether contemplation can likewise be said to give rise to conditions in return — Part 14 picks up the answer to this very question in its opening lines, before completing the treatise's title-exegesis with a final account of the different senses "the middle" can carry.
Part Thirteen Complete
This closes Part Thirteen: the brief and extended titles of the treatise, the two opposite sequences of middle-contemplation-treatise from the teacher's side and the student's side, three reasons the title settles on exactly three characters, the general and particular senses in which each character can be called by all three names, and the mutual generation and exhaustion of the middle and contemplation, dissolving at last into the same agent/patient logic already used of sūtra and treatise.
Part Fourteen completes the title-exegesis and closes the entire treatise: the different ways "the middle" can be understood — by simple definition, by the relationship between principle and teaching, by mutual definition against "the biased," and without any fixed reference at all — before the treatise's final survey of how the outsiders, the Abhidharma masters, Satyasiddhi, and the Mahāyāna schools each understand "the middle" in their own distinct way.