中觀論疏 4.26

4.26

「復次離見不離見」，依偈是第五人無故法無也；若破三種見義，猶屬第三破人見義。偈為二：上半明人無、下半辨法無。上半舉離不離，釋前偈下半法無故人無。若離見有見者，盲人應能見；而盲不能見，即離見無見者。若不離見有見者，即見在眼而者便無見，即亦無者。下半明法無。本由者御眼見色，既其無者，即無能御之人，便無所御之眼，故無所取之色。長行云有無，即是離不離。有是不離，以有見即有見者；無見有者，故無是離也。

As for "Furthermore, apart from seeing or not apart from seeing": according to the verses, this is the fifth, showing that because the person is non-existent, phenomena are non-existent. If considered in terms of refuting the three kinds of theories of seeing, it still belongs to the third, refuting the person who sees. The verse has two parts: the first half explains that the person is non-existent; the second half discerns that phenomena are non-existent. The first half raises "apart from" and "not apart from" to explain the second half of the preceding verse, that because phenomena are non-existent, the person is non-existent. If apart from seeing there is a seer, a blind person should be able to see; but the blind cannot see, so apart from seeing there is no seer. If not apart from seeing there is a seer, seeing resides in the eye and the agent would have no seeing, which means there is also no agent. The second half explains that phenomena are non-existent: originally it was because the agent directed the eye to see visible form; since there is no agent, there is no person who can direct, and thus no eye that is directed, and consequently no visible form that is apprehended. The prose speaks of "existence and non-existence," which is simply "apart from and not apart from." Existence is "not apart from," because where there is seeing there is a seer; having an agent without seeing, therefore non-existence is "apart from."