中觀論疏 5.14

5.14

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.