中觀論疏 4.8

4.8

第三偈二法破。來意者，初偈得相因而失去、次偈得去而失相因，故進退為過。外人今欲立相因、復明有去，即俱免二失。所以然者，既言去時去，即時前之去以為時體，免無體之過；二時後去，賴時而去，無獨去之咎也。上半牒而標過、下半釋過。「一謂為去時」者，此是以一去法為時體也。「二謂去時去」者，復有一法假時而去。問：此有何過耶？答：既有二法即有二時，若有一時應有一法，豈一時之中而有兩去法耶？又去法名身動，既有兩動便有二身二色陰也。色陰既二，四心豈一耶？

The third verse is the refutation by two dharmas. Its purpose is that the first verse obtained mutual dependence but lost going, while the second verse obtained going but lost mutual dependence; therefore, whether advancing or retreating, it incurs error. The opponent now wishes to establish mutual dependence and also explain that there is going, thereby avoiding both errors. Why is this so? Because if one says there is going in the time of going, then the going prior to time is taken as the substance of time, avoiding the fault of having no substance; second, the going subsequent to time relies on time to go, avoiding the error of solitary going. The first half repeats [the opponent's claim] and identifies the fault; the second half explains the fault. 'One is deemed the time of going' refers to taking one dharma of going as the substance of time. 'The second is deemed the going in the time of going' refers to there being another dharma that borrows time to go. Question: What fault is there in this? Answer: Since there are two dharmas, there must be two times; if there is one time, there should be one dharma. How could there be two dharmas of going within a single time? Furthermore, the dharma of going is called physical motion; since there are two motions, there must be two bodies and two form aggregates. With the form aggregate being two, how could the four mental aggregates be one?