中觀論疏 4.8

4.8

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?