[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 4.12 # 中觀論疏 4.12 中觀論疏 4.12 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.12) 「復次若決定有去有去者應有初發」，第三次以三時破發。發與去異者，取其異靜之義稱之為發，動足成步目之為去，故去則是果、發則為因。世間云「千里之行皆因發足，合抱之本起自毫端。」故破發也。至此已來，文三義四。文三者，初破去法、次破去人、今破初發。義四者，謂破人、法、因、果義也。就文為二：初長行、次偈本。長行為二：初序立；「而於三時中求發不可得」者，序破也。就三偈為四：初偈開三時門、次偈釋三時門、第三半偈破三時、第四半偈總結破。初門為二：三句明三時無發、下一句呵之。問：上云去是果、發是因，云何就已去之果求覓初發之因耶？答：此非果中求因，乃是三時門之名耳。上已用三時門求無去法，次就三時門求無去人，今就三時門求無初發。故三時門是能破，人法因果等是所破也。問：何故就三時門破此等法耶？答：去法去人及初發並是起動有為之法，必墮三世，故就三世中求之也。「何處當有發」者，三世中既無，三世外則是無為，無為亦無發，是故呵之。「何以故三時中無發」者，生下釋破偈也。前唱三時無，未釋所以無，今釋所以無，故有此文也。「未發無去時」者，第二釋三時無發，上半釋二時無發、下半釋未去無發。未發無去時，釋上去時中無發。「亦無有已去」，釋已去無發。章門偈則就三時次第，故先已、次未、後去時，今釋就緩切次第，先破其切、後破其緩，以正計去時有發及已去中有發故也。又是逐文勢鉤鎖，接最後去時無發，仍即釋之也。問：云何未發無去時釋去時中無發耶？答：若未發有時，可從時中發；未發竟無時，從何處發耶？問：未發何故無時耶？答：發是動發之法，因法故有時；未發則無法，無法云何有時耶？問：若爾，今因發故有時，可得從時中發耶？答：若因發有時，即時無自體，時無自體即發無所賴，云何得從時中發耶？問：此與上破法何異？答：初章門偈與破法中初偈三時求去法不可得全同，今此偈與上破法中無體偈全同，好體破發亦應具有四破：一無體破、二各體、三二法、四兩人。但上以具明，今略舉初門，即餘三可領也。亦無有已去，釋已去中無發。亦具二義：一者若未發有已去之時，可從已去時中發；未發竟無已時，云何從已時中發？二者因發有時，時即無自體，法何所賴而得發耶？「是二應有發」者，結上二義應有發，而今尚無。未去是未來，未來未有時，云何得從時中發耶？「無去無未去」此，第三次破無三時。破無三時者，上來三處用三時破去法、去人及初發竟，今次破此三時，則前破所破、今破能破。問：何故破三時耶？答：恐外人云若三時中盡無人法因果，何故有此三時耶？既其有時，必應有法。又既有能破，應有所破。是故今明法無故時無，所破無故能破亦無也。「一切無有發」者，第四總結破。一切無者，謂無去法去人等，但發最在後，故偏舉之耳。「何故而分別」者，不應分別有人法因果及三時也。長行云「發無故無去」，此明因無故果無也。「無去故無去」者，法無故人無也。何得有已去未去去時。此是法無故無時。亦是所破無故能破亦無也。問：何故呵外人耶？答：此章破去事竟，故總結呵也。 > “Furthermore, if going and the goer definitely exist, there should be an initial setting forth.” This is the third \[part\], which refutes setting forth by means of the three times. The difference between setting forth and going is that the sense of departing from stillness is termed “setting forth,” while moving the feet to complete steps is designated as “going”; thus going is the effect and setting forth is the cause. In the world it is said: “A journey of a thousand li begins from taking a step; a tree of a armful's girth arises from the tip of a sprout.” Therefore, setting forth is refuted. Up to this point, the text has three sections and four meanings. The three sections are: first, refuting the dharma of going; second, refuting the person who goes; now, refuting the initial setting forth. The four meanings refer to refuting the meanings of person, dharma, cause, and effect. > > With respect to the text, there are two parts: first the prose, then the verse root-text. The prose has two parts: first, setting forth the proposition; “yet searching for setting forth within the three times, it cannot be found” introduces the refutation. Regarding the three verses, there are four parts: the first verse opens the approach of the three times; the next verse explains the approach of the three times; the third half-verse refutes the three times; the fourth half-verse summarizes and concludes the refutation. The first approach has two parts: three lines clarify that there is no setting forth in the three times; the final line scolds \[the opponent\]. > > Question: Above it was said that going is the effect and setting forth is the cause; how can one seek the cause of initial setting forth within the effect of what has already gone? > > Answer: This is not seeking the cause within the effect; it is merely the names of the approach of the three times. Above, the approach of the three times was already used to seek and find no dharma of going; next, the approach of the three times was used to seek and find no person who goes; now, the approach of the three times is used to seek and find no initial setting forth. Therefore, the approach of the three times is that which refutes, and person, dharma, cause, effect, and so forth are that which is refuted. > > Question: Why are these dharmas refuted through the approach of the three times? > > Answer: The dharma of going, the person who goes, and the initial setting forth are all conditioned dharmas of motion and initiation; they necessarily fall within the three periods of time, and therefore they are sought within the three periods of time. “Where could there be setting forth?”: since it does not exist within the three periods of time, outside the three periods of time is the unconditioned; in the unconditioned there is likewise no setting forth, and therefore it is scolded. “Why is there no setting forth within the three times?” introduces the subsequent verse explaining the refutation. Earlier it was proclaimed that it does not exist in the three times, but the reason why it does not exist was not yet explained; now, explaining the reason why it does not exist, this text appears. > > “Without setting forth there is no present time of going”: this is the second part, explaining that there is no setting forth in the three times. The first half explains that there is no setting forth in the two times, and the second half explains that there is no setting forth in what is not yet gone. “Without setting forth there is no present time of going” explains the earlier absence of setting forth in the present time of going. “Nor is there what has already gone” explains the absence of setting forth in what has already gone. The chapter rubric's verse followed the sequence of the three times, hence first the already, next the not yet, and finally the present time of going; the present explanation follows the sequence of urgency, first refuting what is urgent and later what is less urgent, because the opponent specifically posits that setting forth exists in the present time of going and that setting forth exists in what has already gone. Moreover, it follows the interlocking momentum of the text, connecting with the absence of setting forth in the last present time of going and immediately explaining it. > > Question: How does “without setting forth there is no present time of going” explain the absence of setting forth in the present time of going? > > Answer: If prior to setting forth there were time, one could set forth from within time; but prior to setting forth there is no time at all—from where could one set forth? > > Question: Why is there no time prior to setting forth? > > Answer: Setting forth is the dharma of active initiation; because of the dharma there is time. Prior to setting forth there is no dharma; without a dharma, how could there be time? > > Question: If so, now because of setting forth there is time; could one set forth from within time? > > Answer: If because of setting forth there is time, then time has no intrinsic entity; if time has no intrinsic entity, then setting forth has nothing to rely upon—how could it set forth from within time? > > Question: How does this differ from the preceding refutation of the dharma? > > Answer: The initial rubric verse is completely identical to the first verse in the refutation of the dharma, where seeking the dharma of going in the three times was unfindable. The present verse is completely identical to the verse on lack of an entity in the preceding refutation of the dharma. A proper refutation of setting forth should also possess the four refutations: first, refutation through lack of an entity; second, separate entities; third, two dharmas; fourth, two persons. However, since the above has already explained them fully, here only the first approach is briefly mentioned, and the remaining three can be understood from it. “Nor is there what has already gone” explains the absence of setting forth in what has already gone. It also has two meanings: first, if prior to setting forth there were a time of having already gone, one could set forth from within the time of having already gone; but prior to setting forth there is no already-gone time at all—how could one set forth from within an already-gone time? Second, because of setting forth there is time, so time has no intrinsic entity; what would the dharma rely upon to be able to set forth? “In these two there should be setting forth” concludes the two meanings above, that there should be setting forth, yet even now it does not exist. What is not yet gone is the future; in the future there is not yet time, so how could one set forth from within time? > > “There is no going and no not-yet-going”: this is the third \[part\], refuting the absence of the three times. Refuting the absence of the three times means: having already used the three times in the three places above to refute the dharma of going, the person who goes, and the initial setting forth, now one next refutes these three times; thus the former refuted that which is refuted, and the present refutes that which refutes. > > Question: Why are the three times refuted? > > Answer: Out of fear that the opponent would say: if within the three times there are completely no person, dharma, cause, or effect, why are there these three times? Since there is time, there must necessarily be dharmas. Furthermore, since there is that which refutes, there should be that which is refuted. Therefore, it is now explained that because dharmas do not exist, time does not exist; because that which is refuted does not exist, that which refutes also does not exist. > > “In all there is no setting forth”: this is the fourth part, summarizing and concluding the refutation. “In all there is none” means that there is no dharma of going, person who goes, and so forth; but setting forth comes last, so it is uniquely singled out. “Why do you make distinctions?”: one should not distinguish persons, dharmas, causes, effects, and the three times. The prose commentary says: “Because setting forth does not exist, going does not exist”—this clarifies that because the cause does not exist, the effect does not exist. “Because going does not exist, the goer does not exist”—this clarifies that because the dharma does not exist, the person does not exist. How could there be what has already gone, what is not yet gone, and the present time of going? This is: because dharmas do not exist, time does not exist. It is also: because that which is refuted does not exist, that which refutes does not exist either. > > Question: Why is the opponent scolded? > > Answer: This chapter has concluded refuting the matter of going, and therefore it summarizes and scolds them. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.11) - [Next: 4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.13) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.4.12) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [中論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.madhyamaka.mmk!pingala*zh-kumarajiva.1.93) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.4.12) · Pramāṇa