中觀論疏 4.12

4.12

“Furthermore, if going and the goer definitely exist, there should be an initial setting forth.” This is the third [part], which refutes setting forth by means of the three times. The difference between setting forth and going is that the sense of departing from stillness is termed “setting forth,” while moving the feet to complete steps is designated as “going”; thus going is the effect and setting forth is the cause. In the world it is said: “A journey of a thousand li begins from taking a step; a tree of a armful's girth arises from the tip of a sprout.” Therefore, setting forth is refuted. Up to this point, the text has three sections and four meanings. The three sections are: first, refuting the dharma of going; second, refuting the person who goes; now, refuting the initial setting forth. The four meanings refer to refuting the meanings of person, dharma, cause, and effect.

With respect to the text, there are two parts: first the prose, then the verse root-text. The prose has two parts: first, setting forth the proposition; “yet searching for setting forth within the three times, it cannot be found” introduces the refutation. Regarding the three verses, there are four parts: the first verse opens the approach of the three times; the next verse explains the approach of the three times; the third half-verse refutes the three times; the fourth half-verse summarizes and concludes the refutation. The first approach has two parts: three lines clarify that there is no setting forth in the three times; the final line scolds [the opponent].

Question: Above it was said that going is the effect and setting forth is the cause; how can one seek the cause of initial setting forth within the effect of what has already gone?

Answer: This is not seeking the cause within the effect; it is merely the names of the approach of the three times. Above, the approach of the three times was already used to seek and find no dharma of going; next, the approach of the three times was used to seek and find no person who goes; now, the approach of the three times is used to seek and find no initial setting forth. Therefore, the approach of the three times is that which refutes, and person, dharma, cause, effect, and so forth are that which is refuted.

Question: Why are these dharmas refuted through the approach of the three times?

Answer: The dharma of going, the person who goes, and the initial setting forth are all conditioned dharmas of motion and initiation; they necessarily fall within the three periods of time, and therefore they are sought within the three periods of time. “Where could there be setting forth?”: since it does not exist within the three periods of time, outside the three periods of time is the unconditioned; in the unconditioned there is likewise no setting forth, and therefore it is scolded. “Why is there no setting forth within the three times?” introduces the subsequent verse explaining the refutation. Earlier it was proclaimed that it does not exist in the three times, but the reason why it does not exist was not yet explained; now, explaining the reason why it does not exist, this text appears.

“Without setting forth there is no present time of going”: this is the second part, explaining that there is no setting forth in the three times. The first half explains that there is no setting forth in the two times, and the second half explains that there is no setting forth in what is not yet gone. “Without setting forth there is no present time of going” explains the earlier absence of setting forth in the present time of going. “Nor is there what has already gone” explains the absence of setting forth in what has already gone. The chapter rubric's verse followed the sequence of the three times, hence first the already, next the not yet, and finally the present time of going; the present explanation follows the sequence of urgency, first refuting what is urgent and later what is less urgent, because the opponent specifically posits that setting forth exists in the present time of going and that setting forth exists in what has already gone. Moreover, it follows the interlocking momentum of the text, connecting with the absence of setting forth in the last present time of going and immediately explaining it.

Question: How does “without setting forth there is no present time of going” explain the absence of setting forth in the present time of going?

Answer: If prior to setting forth there were time, one could set forth from within time; but prior to setting forth there is no time at all—from where could one set forth?

Question: Why is there no time prior to setting forth?

Answer: Setting forth is the dharma of active initiation; because of the dharma there is time. Prior to setting forth there is no dharma; without a dharma, how could there be time?

Question: If so, now because of setting forth there is time; could one set forth from within time?

Answer: If because of setting forth there is time, then time has no intrinsic entity; if time has no intrinsic entity, then setting forth has nothing to rely upon—how could it set forth from within time?

Question: How does this differ from the preceding refutation of the dharma?

Answer: The initial rubric verse is completely identical to the first verse in the refutation of the dharma, where seeking the dharma of going in the three times was unfindable. The present verse is completely identical to the verse on lack of an entity in the preceding refutation of the dharma. A proper refutation of setting forth should also possess the four refutations: first, refutation through lack of an entity; second, separate entities; third, two dharmas; fourth, two persons. However, since the above has already explained them fully, here only the first approach is briefly mentioned, and the remaining three can be understood from it. “Nor is there what has already gone” explains the absence of setting forth in what has already gone. It also has two meanings: first, if prior to setting forth there were a time of having already gone, one could set forth from within the time of having already gone; but prior to setting forth there is no already-gone time at all—how could one set forth from within an already-gone time? Second, because of setting forth there is time, so time has no intrinsic entity; what would the dharma rely upon to be able to set forth? “In these two there should be setting forth” concludes the two meanings above, that there should be setting forth, yet even now it does not exist. What is not yet gone is the future; in the future there is not yet time, so how could one set forth from within time?

“There is no going and no not-yet-going”: this is the third [part], refuting the absence of the three times. Refuting the absence of the three times means: having already used the three times in the three places above to refute the dharma of going, the person who goes, and the initial setting forth, now one next refutes these three times; thus the former refuted that which is refuted, and the present refutes that which refutes.

Question: Why are the three times refuted?

Answer: Out of fear that the opponent would say: if within the three times there are completely no person, dharma, cause, or effect, why are there these three times? Since there is time, there must necessarily be dharmas. Furthermore, since there is that which refutes, there should be that which is refuted. Therefore, it is now explained that because dharmas do not exist, time does not exist; because that which is refuted does not exist, that which refutes also does not exist.

“In all there is no setting forth”: this is the fourth part, summarizing and concluding the refutation. “In all there is none” means that there is no dharma of going, person who goes, and so forth; but setting forth comes last, so it is uniquely singled out. “Why do you make distinctions?”: one should not distinguish persons, dharmas, causes, effects, and the three times. The prose commentary says: “Because setting forth does not exist, going does not exist”—this clarifies that because the cause does not exist, the effect does not exist. “Because going does not exist, the goer does not exist”—this clarifies that because the dharma does not exist, the person does not exist. How could there be what has already gone, what is not yet gone, and the present time of going? This is: because dharmas do not exist, time does not exist. It is also: because that which is refuted does not exist, that which refutes does not exist either.

Question: Why is the opponent scolded?

Answer: This chapter has concluded refuting the matter of going, and therefore it summarizes and scolds them.