中觀論疏 4.7

4.7

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.