中觀論疏 4.7

4.7

第二偈各體破，亦云獨去破。來意者，初偈無體，名為奪破；後之三偈並是縱關。縱關者，縱其時法相離，即難破之。又初偈無體破，破無別時部；後三偈，破有別時部。破此二，即一切立窮。上半牒而標過、下半難而釋過。「若言去時去」，此牒外立也。上明去時不得有去，今縱關去時有去，是故有「若言」之句也。「是人即有咎」者，標過也。此偈與前進退成過。前明時無別體故法無所賴，即不得去；今明若有時體可賴時而去，即時法有相離之咎。「離去有去時」者，下半正釋過也。既言法賴時去，即離法別有時體也。「去時獨去故」者，此傳顯相離之失。所以傳顯相離失者，內法中有二種計，如數論等因法假名時，離法無別時，即無相離之失。如譬喻部等謂別有時體，法是色心、時非色心，故須顯相離之失。若爾，上句破數論、今斥譬喻人。若相離者去之與時並各獨去，獨去者兩各相離，去不因時，是法獨義；時不因去，是獨時也。又有人言：今去時獨自去，故云獨去。此非文旨也。

The second verse is the refutation by distinct substance, also called the refutation by solitary going. Its purpose is that the first verse refuted [it by showing that time has] no substance, which is called refutation by deprivation; the following three verses are all concessive cross-examinations. 'Concessive cross-examination' means that conceding time and dharma to be separate, one immediately challenges and refutes them. Furthermore, the first verse's refutation of no substance refutes the schools that maintain there is no distinct time; the subsequent three verses refute the schools that maintain there is a distinct time. When these two are refuted, then all positions are exhausted. The first half repeats [the opponent's claim] and identifies the fault; the second half challenges and explains the fault. 'If one says there is going in the time of going' repeats the external proposition. Above, it was explained that in the time of going there cannot be going; now it is conceded for the sake of argument that there is going in the time of going, which is why there is the phrase 'If one says'. 'That person falls into error' identifies the fault. This verse together with the preceding one establishes an error whether one advances or retreats: the preceding one explained that because time has no distinct substance, the dharma has nothing to rely upon and thus cannot go; the present one explains that if there were a substance of time that could be relied upon and one goes in it, then there would be the fault of time and dharma being separate from each other. 'There is a time of going apart from going' in the lower half directly explains the fault. Since one claims that the dharma relies on time to go, there must be a distinct substance of time apart from the dharma. 'Because the time of going would go alone' successively reveals the flaw of separation. Why is the flaw of separation successively revealed? Within the Buddhist schools there are two kinds of positions: as with the Sāṃkhya and others, time is a provisional designation dependent on dharmas, and apart from dharmas there is no distinct time, so there is no flaw of separation. As with the Dārṣṭāntika and others, it is held that there is a distinct substance of time; dharmas are form and mind, whereas time is neither form nor mind, so it is necessary to reveal the flaw of separation. If so, the upper line refutes the Sāṃkhya, and the present line reproaches the Dārṣṭāntikas. If they are separate, both going and time would each go alone; 'going alone' means the two are mutually separate: going not depending on time is the meaning of the dharma being alone; time not depending on going is the solitary time. Furthermore, someone says: 'Now the time of going goes on its own, hence it is said to go alone.' This is not the meaning of the text.