中觀論疏 5.14

5.14

「異相無有成」下，第五兩偈呵責破。此兩偈可有二意：一者從品初長行竟於品末而釋之。外人品初長行知人法異為無成，立人法相依為欲合，品初五偈破為竟無成，眼見異法合為而復說異相。二者直依偈文次第釋者，就文為二：初偈序其失宗、次偈呵責其欲合。「異相無有成」者，牒品初二偈也。以二偈責法人前後相不成故也。「是故汝欲合」者，序外人捨前後而立一時也。「合相竟無成」者，序破一時一偈并一異兩偈。覓合不成，故云合相竟無成。此三都是責合相不成也。「而復說異相」者，序外人偏引眼見異相合也。「異相不成故」者，此第二偈呵之也。偈呵最後立異有合，又惑者多計異合故偏呵之。此偈上半牒二無、下半呵二有。二無者，一者無異也。凡論有異，不出前後一時及上離伴等異。上已明無此等異，故言異相不成也。「合相則不成」者，次牒無合也。從品初來求先後一時及一異等，一切合義不得也。「於何異相中」下，此呵二有也。初句呵無異計異。夫論有異，不出先後一時及一異中異，汝眼見何物異耶？上來諸門責心不見有合，今責眼即眼不能見也。既覓異不得，故云於何異相中。「而欲說合相」，次句呵其無合計合。

From "The characteristic of difference is not established" onward, the fifth section refutes by means of censure in two verses. These two verses can have two meanings: First, explaining from the prose commentary at the beginning of the chapter through to the end of the chapter: at the beginning of the chapter the opponent knew from the prose that difference between person and dharma is unestablished, so he posited mutual dependence between person and dharma desiring them to unite; the first five verses of the chapter refuted this as ultimately unestablished, so seeing with the eyes that different dharmas unite, why speak again of the characteristic of difference? Second, directly explaining according to the sequence of the verse text, the text has two parts: the first verse relates his loss of the thesis; the next verse censures his desire for union. "The characteristic of difference is not established" cites the first two verses of the chapter, because those two verses challenged the dharmas as having sequence, which was not established. "Therefore you desire union" relates the opponent's abandoning sequence and positing simultaneity. "The characteristic of union is ultimately not established" relates the verse refuting simultaneity together with the two verses on identity and difference. Searching for union, it is not established; hence it says "the characteristic of union is ultimately not established." These three all censure the characteristic of union as being unestablished. "Yet you speak again of the characteristic of difference" relates the opponent's exclusively citing the visible union of different characteristics. "Because the characteristic of difference is not established" is the second verse censuring it. The verse censures the final proposition that difference has union, and because the deluded mostly assume union in difference, it censures it particularly. The upper half of this verse cites two nonexistences; the lower half censures two existences. As for the two nonexistences: the first is the absence of difference. Any discussion of the existence of difference does not go beyond sequence, simultaneity, and the difference of being apart from a companion above. Having already explained above that there is no such difference, it therefore says "the characteristic of difference is not established." "The characteristic of union is then not established" next cites the absence of union. Searching from the beginning of the chapter for sequence, simultaneity, identity, difference, and so forth, every sense of union is unfindable. From "In what characteristic of difference" onward, this censures the two existences. The first line censures assuming difference where there is no difference. Any discussion of the existence of difference does not go beyond sequence, simultaneity, and the difference within identity and difference; what different thing do your eyes see? The approaches above challenged the mind as not seeing any union; now challenging the eye, the eye cannot see it either. Since searching for difference, it cannot be found, it therefore says "in what characteristic of difference." "Do you desire to speak of the characteristic of union?" The next line censures asserting union where there is no union.