中觀論疏 7.27

7.27

品開為二：初長行發起、二偈本正破無合。初又二：前發起品來意、次問無合所由。此品稱「說曰」者，交言曰論，直語名說。此品既重料簡〈六情品〉，非正是外人乘前問後，故稱說曰。又上品從虛實窮至破重空，外人口眼不能救，但心下未悟，論主懸取外心提起而破之，故云說曰。八偈為三：初兩偈縱異奪合、第二五偈正破無異、第三一偈明無異故無合。初又二：前偈明見等三法異故無合、第二偈明一切法異故無合。三法異故無合者，眼色是法、見者為人，人法既異，云何合耶？就法中，色為其外、眼為其內，內外既異，亦無合也。問：世間外道大乘小乘但明眼色異而合，合者根塵相會故言合耳。今言異不合，乃似正是外義，何名破耶？答：此有二義。一者根塵體異，無相到義故無合。若言懸合者，既不到近色與近合，亦不到遠應與遠合也。此中破異不得合，成實師假人與實異不得合，心與真諦頑境異亦不得合。攝論師應身體是無常與法身異不得合。

The chapter opens into two parts: first, the prose introduction; second, the root verses that properly refute combination. The first part also has two: first, introducing the reason for the chapter's coming; next, asking the reason for the absence of combination. That this chapter is titled "It is said:" [is because] reciprocal dialogue is called "treatise," while direct speech is called "saying." Since this chapter re-examines the "Examination of the Six Sense-Faculties" and is not strictly the opponent following what came before to ask what follows, it is called "It is said." Furthermore, the previous chapter pursued [the inquiry] from the real and deceptive up to the refutation of layered emptiness; the opponent's mouth and eyes could not rescue him, but his mind had not yet awakened, so the author anticipated the opponent's mind, brought it forward, and refuted it; therefore it is called "It is said." The eight verses form three parts: the first two verses concede difference to eliminate combination; the second five verses properly refute non-difference; the third verse clarifies that because of non-difference, there is no combination. The first part also has two: the first verse clarifies that because the three dharmas—seeing and so forth—are different, there is no combination; the second verse clarifies that because all dharmas are different, there is no combination. That the three dharmas are different and therefore have no combination means: eye and form are dharmas, while the seer is a person; since person and dharma are different, how could they combine? Within dharmas, form is external and the eye is internal; since internal and external are different, there is also no combination. Question: Worldly people, non-Buddhists, Mahāyāna, and Hīnayāna all clarify that eye and form are different yet combine, and combination simply means that faculty and dust meet, which is why it is called combination. Now to say that being different means not combining seems to be precisely the opponent's view; how can this be called a refutation? Answer: There are two meanings: First, the substances of faculty and dust are different, having no meaning of reaching each other, and therefore do not combine. If one says they combine at a distance: since it does not reach nearby forms yet combines with what is near, it also does not reach distant [forms] and should combine with what is distant. In this refutation of difference preventing combination: for the masters of the Tattvasiddhi, the provisional person and the real dharma are different and cannot combine; the mind and the inert object of the ultimate truth are different and also cannot combine. For the masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the substance of the response body is impermanent and different from the Dharma body, so they cannot combine.