中論 觀去來品第二

Textual Collation

The base-text unit is “Examination of Going and Coming, Chapter Two” in T30n1564〔T30 0003c06–0005c15〕. The main text preserves the wording of the Taishō base. Variants from the original collation of the Song, Yuan, and Ming canons are displayed only in this section and never retrojected into the source text. The original collation records the following twenty-five variants:

The chapter-title readings 「觀去來／破去來」 tr. “examination of going and coming / refutation of going and coming” and the presence or absence of 「二十五偈」 tr. “twenty-five verses” affect catalog labeling and transmitted verse counts. Omissions, additions, homophones, and graphic variants within the main text generally do not alter the chapter’s argumentative skeleton. All are recorded without adjudication. Any decision among them would require a separate collation case; a reading from one edition cannot be silently written back into the reader source.

Comparative Readings

This section draws T1566 and T1567 at corresponding argumentative joints. Shared meanings confirm common transmission; additional developments are explicitly marked as alternative commentary and never passed off as Qingmu’s prose.

A. Seeking Going in the Three Times

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0003c06–0003c07〕 reads: 「世間眼見三時有作：已去、未去、去時。以有作故，當知有諸法。」 tr. “The worldly eye sees activity in the three times: already gone, not yet gone, and the time of going. Since activity exists, one should know that dharmas exist.” The question infers the real existence of dharmas from visibly present activity and establishes the position answered by the chapter. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0003c08–0003c09〕 reads: 「已去無有去，未去亦無去，離已去未去，去時亦無去。」 tr. “There is no going in what has already gone, nor in what has not yet gone; apart from the already gone and not yet gone, there is no going at the time of going.” Activity has subsided in what has gone and has not arisen in what has not gone. Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0003c11–0003c12〕 says: 「去時名半去半未去，不離已去、未去故。」 tr. “The time of going names what is half gone and half not yet gone, because it is not apart from the already gone and not yet gone.” The time of going therefore has no separate body apart from the first two phases. This is the chapter’s first gateway.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0060b07〕, reads: 「離已去未去，去時亦不受。」 tr. “Apart from the already gone and not yet gone, the time of going cannot be accepted either.” Its prose immediately asks whether the time of going is already gone, not yet gone, or half gone and half not yet gone; none of the three divisions can establish an independent time of going. The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0139c15〕, reads: 「離已去未去，去時亦無去。」 tr. “Apart from the already gone and not yet gone, there is no going at the time of going.” The three versions differ in such vocabulary as 「無有去／不受」 tr. “there is no going / cannot be accepted,” while pointing in corresponding argumentative directions.

B. The Time of Going, Two Goings, and Two Goers

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004a02–0004a03〕 reads: 「云何於去時，而當有去法？若離於去法，去時不可得。」 tr. “How could a dharma of going exist at the time of going? Apart from the dharma of going, the time of going cannot be found.” Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0004a04–0004a06〕 reads: 「去時有去法，是事不然。何以故？離去法去時不可得。若離去法有去時者，應去時中有去，如器中有果。」 tr. “That a dharma of going exists at the time of going is not so. Why? Apart from going, the time of going cannot be found. If a time of going existed apart from the dharma of going, going would be contained within the time of going as fruit is contained in a vessel.” The time of going cannot receive another going as though it were a vessel established beforehand. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004a13–0004a14〕 reads: 「若去時有去，則有二種去：一謂為去時，二謂去時去。」 tr. “If going exists at the time of going, there are two kinds of going: one that constitutes the time of going, and one that goes at the time of going.” The dharma of going first establishes the 「去時」 tr. “time of going” and is then established again within it, counting the same activity twice. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004a18–0004a19〕 reads: 「若有二去法，則有二去者；以離於去者，去法不可得。」 tr. “If there are two dharmas of going, there are two goers, because the dharma of going cannot be found apart from a goer.” Two goings force out two goers.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0060c21–0060c26〕, reads: 「「若去時中去，復及此行去，則墮二去過，此義則不然。」釋曰：此謂於世諦中義不然故。復次偈曰：「若有二去法，則有二去者。」釋曰：何因緣故作如此遮？若有二法，則有二者。」 tr. “‘If going occurs within the time of going and this movement also goes, the fault of two goings follows; this is not so.’ Commentary: This means that it is not so within conventional truth. The next verse says: ‘If there are two dharmas of going, there are two goers.’ Why make this denial? If there are two dharmas, there are two agents.” The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0140a11–0140a12〕, reads: 「若去時有去，則有二種去：一謂有去時，二謂去時去。」 tr. “If going exists at the time of going, there are two kinds: one that establishes the time of going and one that goes at the time of going.” Both alternative commentaries preserve the pressure that moves from two goings to two goers.

C. Mutual Dependence of Goer and Dharma of Going

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004a24–0004a25〕 reads: 「若離於去者，去法不可得；以無去法故，何得有去者？」 tr. “Apart from a goer, the dharma of going cannot be found; since no dharma of going exists, how can there be a goer?” Going cannot stand apart from the goer, nor can the goer be established first where no going exists. The verses that follow on 「去者、不去者、第三去者」 tr. “goer, non-goer, and a third goer” and 「去者去」 tr. “the goer goes” repeatedly examine this mutual dependence.

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004a28–0004a29〕 reads: 「去者則不去，不去者不去；離去不去者，無第三去者。」 tr. “The goer does not go, nor does the non-goer go; apart from the goer and non-goer, there is no third goer.” The name goer already depends on the dharma of going, while non-goer is named precisely by the absence of going. Outside these two there is no third subject that falls under neither going nor its absence.

The assertion 「去者去」 tr. “the goer goes” then undergoes three examinations. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004b04–0004b05〕 reads: 「若言去者去，云何有此義？若離於去法，去者不可得。」 tr. “If one says the goer goes, how can this make sense? Apart from the dharma of going, the goer cannot be found.” It first refutes a goer existing apart from going. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004b09–0004b10〕 reads: 「若去者有去，則有二種去：一謂去者去，二謂去法去。」 tr. “If the goer possesses going, there are two kinds of going: the going of the goer and the going of the dharma of going.” Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0004b11–0004b13〕 reads: 「若言去者用去法，則有二過，於一去者中而有二去：一以去法成去者、二以去者成去法。去者成已然後用去法，是事不然。」 tr. “If the goer uses the dharma of going, two faults follow: one goer has two goings, one by which going establishes the goer and one by which the goer establishes going. That the goer is established and only then uses the dharma of going is not so.” This next refutes using one going to establish the agent and another for the agent to employ. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004b16–0004b17〕 reads: 「若謂去者去，是人則有咎，離去有去者，說去者有去。」 tr. “Whoever maintains that the goer goes incurs a fault: a goer exists apart from going and is then said to possess going.” Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0004b18–0004b21〕 reads: 「若人說去者能用去法，是人則有咎，離去法有去者。何以故？說去者用去法，是為先有去者後有去法。是事不然，是故三時中無有去者。」 tr. “Whoever says that the goer can use the dharma of going incurs a fault: a goer exists apart from going. Why? To say the goer uses going places the goer first and the dharma of going later. This is not so; therefore no goer exists in the three times.” This finally refutes the reversed sequence in which the goer is established first and going added later.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0061a16–0061a23〕, reads: 「「離去者無去。」釋曰：汝言去者為去依止，以此依止有故，為去因者，是義不然。何以故？若未說因時，去則不成。此之過失，汝不得離。如偈曰：「離去者有去，是義則不然。」釋曰：若離去者，去則不成。如此句義，先已分別。是故偈曰：「若其無彼去，何處有去者？」」 tr. “‘Apart from a goer there is no going.’ Commentary: You say that the goer is the support of going and that the existence of this support is the cause of going. This is not so. Why? Before that cause is stated, going is not established; you cannot escape this fault. The verse says, ‘That going exists apart from a goer is not so.’ Apart from a goer, going is not established, as already explained. Therefore the verse says, ‘If that going is absent, where can a goer exist?’” This explicitly says that neither end can be established apart from the other.

D. Initial Setting Forth

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004b24–0004b25〕 reads: 「已去中無發，未去中無發，去時中無發，何處當有發？」 tr. “There is no setting forth in what has already gone, none in what has not yet gone, and none at the time of going. Where could setting forth occur?” In what has gone it is too late; in what has not gone the dharma of going has not arisen; at the time of going, that very time already depends on the dharma of going.

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004b27–0004c01〕 reads: 「未發無去時，亦無有已去，是二應有發，未去何有發？無去無未去，亦復無去時，一切無有發，何故而分別？」 tr. “Before setting forth there is no time of going and nothing already gone. If setting forth should occur in these two, how could it occur in what has not gone? There is neither going nor not yet gone, and likewise no time of going. If setting forth exists nowhere, why make distinctions?” Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0004c02–0004c05〕 reads: 「若人未發則無去時亦無已去；若有發當在二處：去時、已去中。二俱不然，未去時未有發故。未去中何有發？發無故無去，無去故無去者，何得有已去、未去、去時。」 tr. “Before a person sets forth there is neither a time of going nor something already gone. If setting forth existed, it would occur in one of those two, but neither is possible because it has not occurred in what has not yet gone. Where could it occur there? With no setting forth there is no going; with no going there is no goer. How could there be already gone, not yet gone, or time of going?” This shows from the reverse direction that before setting forth, even the time of going and what has gone are unestablished. One cannot borrow an already constituted time in which to place an initial setting forth.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0062b01–0062b07〕, reads: 「「已去中無發，未去亦無發，去時中無發，何處當有發？」釋曰：已去中無發者，謂去作用於彼已謝故。未去亦無發者，謂未行無去，去則不然。去時中無發者，謂已去未去等皆無去義，云何可說去時有去？如是三種俱無初發，是故偈言，何處當有發。」 tr. “‘There is no setting forth in what has gone, none in what has not gone, and none at the time of going. Where could setting forth occur?’ In what has gone it is absent because the activity of going has subsided. In what has not gone it is absent because without movement there is no going. At the time of going it is absent because neither the already gone nor not yet gone contains going; how can one say going exists at the time of going? None of the three contains an initial setting forth; therefore the verse asks where it could occur.” The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0140c19〕, reads: 「離已去未去，去時中無發。」 tr. “Apart from what has already gone and what has not yet gone, there is no setting forth at the time of going.” Both alternative commentaries likewise refrain from installing a self-existent beginning in the three times.

E. Standing, Continuation, and Cessation

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0004c07–0004c08〕 reads: 「去者則不住，不去者不住，離去不去者，何有第三住？」 tr. “The goer does not stand, nor does the non-goer stand; apart from the goer and non-goer, how could there be a third standing?” Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0004c09–0005a04〕 reads: 「若有住、有住者，應去者住、若不去者住。若離此二，應有第三住。是事不然。去者不住，去未息故，與去相違名為住。不去者亦不住。何以故？因去法滅故有住，無去則無住。離去者不去者，更無第三住者。若有第三住者，即在去者、不去者中。以是故，不得言去者住。」 tr. “If standing and a stander existed, either the goer or non-goer would stand. Apart from both, a third standing would be required, which is not so. The goer does not stand because going has not ceased; what opposes going is called standing. The non-goer does not stand either, because standing exists through the cessation of going; without going, there is no standing. Apart from the goer and non-goer there is no third stander. If there were, it would still fall within one of the two. Therefore one cannot say the goer stands.” Goer, non-goer, and third stander all fail to leave behind a stander with intrinsic nature.

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0005a10–0005a11〕 reads: 「去未去無住，去時亦無住，所有行止法，皆同於去義。」 tr. “There is no standing in what has gone or not gone, nor at the time of going; every dharma of continuation and cessation follows the reasoning of going.” Qingmu extends this gateway to the succession of grain and sprout and to the twelve links of dependent origination: succession is called continuation and interruption cessation; no self-existent standing is established apart from going.

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005a14–0005a18〕 reads: 「如破去法、住法，行、止亦如是。行者，如從穀子相續至芽莖葉等。止者，穀子滅故芽莖葉滅。相續故名行，斷故名止。又如無明緣諸行乃至老死是名行，無明滅故諸行等滅是名止。」 tr. “As the dharmas of going and standing are refuted, continuation and cessation are likewise. Continuation is the succession from grain to sprout, stalk, leaf, and so forth. Cessation is the ceasing of the grain, through which sprout, stalk, and leaf cease. Succession is called continuation; interruption is called cessation. Ignorance conditioning formations and so on through aging-and-death is called continuation; when ignorance ceases and formations and the rest cease, this is called cessation.” The meanings of continuation and cessation are explicitly extended here to the external sequence of grain and sprout and the internal twelve links.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0062c16–0062c25〕, reads: 「「去者則不住。」釋曰：此謂第一義中立去者住，驗不可得。何以故？以去者動作故，譬如調達正行未息。若謂未去者住，是亦不然。如偈曰：「未去者不住。」釋曰：彼未去者以無去故，於世諦中彼去息故，名之為住。此義不成，以去無體故。復次惡見所持、邪執自在作如是說，欲得異住。如偈曰：「異去未去者，誰為第三住？」」 tr. “‘The goer does not stand.’ Establishing a goer who stands within ultimate meaning cannot be verified. Why? Because the goer is moving, like Devadatta whose walking has not ceased. Nor does the not-yet-goer stand. The verse says, ‘The not-yet-goer does not stand.’ In conventional truth that person is called standing because their going has ceased, but this cannot be established because going has no body. Those held by bad views and freely constructing false attachments seek a different standing. The verse asks, ‘Apart from the goer and not-yet-goer, who could be a third stander?’” The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0141b10〕, reads: 「所有行止法，皆同去義說。」 tr. “Every dharma of continuation and cessation is explained according to the meaning of going.” None of the three versions lets the stander become a permanent body left behind after motion ceases.

F. Dharma of Going and Goer Are Neither Identical nor Different

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005a18–0005a19〕 reads: 「問曰：汝雖種種門破去去者、住住者，而眼見有去住。」 tr. “Question: Although you refute going and goer, standing and stander, through many gateways, the eye sees going and standing.” The outsider invokes the physical eye’s visible perception and asks how it is to be established after the preceding refutations.

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005a19–0005a21〕 reads: 「答曰：肉眼所見不可信。若實有去去者，為以一法成？為以二法成？二俱有過。何以故？」 tr. “Answer: What the physical eye sees is not trustworthy. If going and a goer truly existed, would they be established through one dharma or through two? Both entail faults. Why?” This does not deny the bodily movement seen by the eye; it denies that visible perception alone proves intrinsic existence. Anyone still asserting real existence must establish it through either one dharma or two, and the next verse examines identity and difference in turn.

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0005a22–0005a23〕 reads: 「去法即去者，是事則不然；去法異去者，是事亦不然。」 tr. “That the dharma of going is the goer is not so; that it differs from the goer is likewise not so.” If identical, agent and action collapse into one body; if different, walking should exist apart from a walker and a walker apart from walking.

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0005a26–0005a29〕 reads: 「若謂於去法，即為是去者；作者及作業，是事則為一。若謂於去法，有異於去者；離去者有去，離去有去者。」 tr. “If the dharma of going itself were the goer, agent and action would be one. If a goer different from going existed, going would exist apart from the goer and the goer apart from going.” Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005b01–0005b07〕 reads: 「若去法即是去者，是則錯亂，破於因緣。因去有去者，因去者有去。又去名為法，去者名為人，人常法無常。若一者，則二俱應常、二俱無常。一中有如是等過。若異者則相違。未有去法應有去者，未有去者應有去法，不相因待，一法滅應一法在。異中有如是等過。」 tr. “If going were the goer, confusion would follow and causes and conditions be destroyed. The goer exists because of going, and going because of the goer. Going is called a dharma, the goer a person; the person is permanent and the dharma impermanent. If one, both should be permanent or both impermanent. Identity entails such faults. If different, contradiction follows: the goer should exist before going and going before the goer. They would not depend on one another, and when one ceased, the other should remain. Difference entails such faults.” This is the base-text ground for the faults involving agent and action, the natures of person and dharma, priority, and persistence.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0063c04–0063c13〕, reads: 「如是第一義中，去及去者此二不一。何以故？以作者作業故，如能斫、所斫。此二顯現，亦不得異。何以故？以去、去者更互俱空故，譬如餘物。或有難言：若去及去者更互俱空，空無異相，體不可得。汝引能斫、所斫為譬喻者，此義不成。論者言：汝不善說，唯遮一故。彼二相差別，世間悉解。如是能斫、所斫更互俱空，此義成立。如能覺、所覺二更互空。於世諦中二相異故，引為譬喻，非喻不成。」 tr. “Within ultimate meaning, going and goer are not one, because they are agent and action, like cutter and what is cut. Though both appear, they are not different either, because going and goer are mutually empty, as are other things. An objection says: if going and goer are mutually empty, without distinct marks or obtainable bodies, your analogy of cutter and cut fails. The treatise responds: you speak poorly, for only identity is denied. The world understands their two distinct marks. Cutter and cut are mutually empty, as knower and known are mutually empty. Their marks differ in conventional truth, so the analogy stands.” This alternative commentary specifically clarifies that the intrinsic identity and difference of the two cannot be found without preventing the conventional distinction between agent and action.

The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0142a08–0142a17〕, reads: 「「去法異去者，是事亦不然。」釋曰：若離去法，而彼去者即不決定。若離去法不決定時，無復別異去者可去。此所分別，若有去者去法二種可得，即去者去法有二可成。所以有去法，故即有去者；有去者故，即有去法。如因果二不相離性，此說義成。若因果同生，即無性可得，如種生芽。是故有去法故即有去者，有去者故即有去法。若一性所成、若異性所成，然去者去法二俱無有，勝義諦中此說成就。」 tr. “‘That the dharma of going differs from the goer is likewise not so.’ Apart from going, the goer is indeterminate; when indeterminate apart from going, no separate goer remains to go. If goer and going were two obtainable kinds, each could be established. Because there is going there is a goer, and because there is a goer there is going, like cause and effect inseparable in nature. If cause and effect arise together, no nature can be found, like seed producing sprout. Thus, because going exists there is a goer, and because a goer exists there is going. Whether established as one nature or different natures, neither goer nor going exists; this statement is established in ultimate truth.” Its images of cause and effect and seed and sprout are developments in Sthiramati’s version, not interpolations into Kumārajīva’s text.

G. Same Going and Different Going

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0005b13–0005b14〕 reads: 「因去知去者，不能用是去；先無有去法，故無去者去。」 tr. “The goer known through going cannot use this same going; before the dharma of going existed, no goer went.” The same going that makes someone a goer cannot then be used by an already established goer without reversing the sequence. Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0005b20–0005b21〕 reads: 「因去知去者，不能用異去，於一去者中，不得二去故。」 tr. “The goer known through going cannot use a different going, because two goings cannot be found within one goer.” Substituting another going returns to the fault of two goings in one person.

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005b15–0005b19〕 reads: 「隨以何去法知去者？是去者不能用是去法。何以故？是去法未有時無有去者，亦無去時、已去、未去。如先有人、有城邑，得有所起。去法、去者則不然，去者因去法成，去法因去者成故。」 tr. “Whichever dharma of going identifies the goer, that goer cannot use the same dharma. Why? Before it existed, there was no goer and no time of going, already gone, or not yet gone. When a person and a city exist beforehand, setting forth can occur. Going and goer are not so: the goer is established through going, and going through the goer.” A person and a city can be pointed out before a journey; this does not mean that the role 「去者」 tr. “goer,” named through an activity, exists before the dharma of going.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0064c21〕, reads: 「先無有去法，故無去者去。」 tr. “Before the dharma of going existed, no goer went.” The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0142a22〕, reads: 「因去知去者，不能用是去。」 tr. “The goer known through going cannot use this same going.” Although their phrasing unfolds differently, both versions preserve the sequential difficulty 「以去成去者，再令去者用去」 tr. “establishing a goer through going and then making that goer employ going.”

H. Fixed, Unfixed, Real, and Unreal

Nāgārjuna’s verse in T30n1564〔0005b25–0005b28〕 reads: 「決定有去者，不能用三去；不決定去者，亦不用三去。去法定不定，去者不用三，是故去去者，所去處皆無。」 tr. “A fixed goer cannot use the three goings; an unfixed goer cannot use them either. Whether going is fixed or unfixed, the goer uses none of the three. Therefore going, goer, and destination are all absent.” Qingmu explains 「決定」 tr. “fixed” as truly existent from the beginning and not produced through going, and 「不決定」 tr. “unfixed” as not truly existent from the beginning but named through going. Neither gateway can turn a mutually dependent name into intrinsic nature.

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005b29–0005c10〕 reads: 「決定者，名本實有，不因去法生。去法名身動。三種名未去、已去、去時。若決定有去者，離去法應有去者，不應有住，是故說決定有去者不能用三去。若去者不決定，不決定名本實無，以因去法得名去者，以無去法故不能用三去。因去法故有去者，若先無去法則無去者。云何言不決定去者用三去？如去者，去法亦如是。若先離去者決定有去法，則不因去者有去法，是故去者不能用三去法。若決定無去法，去者何所用？」 tr. “‘Fixed’ means truly existent from the beginning and not produced through going. The dharma of going names bodily movement. The three are not yet gone, already gone, and time of going. If a fixed goer existed, the goer should exist apart from going and should never stand; therefore a fixed goer cannot use the three goings. If the goer is unfixed—meaning originally unreal and named through going—without going it cannot use the three. The goer exists through going; if going did not exist first, there is no goer. How could an unfixed goer use the three? As with goer, so with going. If going existed fixedly apart from the goer, it would not exist through the goer, so the goer cannot use the three. If going is fixedly absent, what can the goer use?” This is the base prose for the meanings of fixed and unfixed and their inability to employ the three goings.

Bhāviveka’s version does not use Kumārajīva’s exact vocabulary 「定／不定」 tr. “fixed / unfixed,” but speaks of real, unreal, and both real and unreal. The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0065b14–0065b22〕, reads: 「「有實無有實，亦有實無實，如是三去者，各不用三去。」釋曰：有實去者，謂與去和合故，名為有去。此義云何？若有實去者，不用三去。謂有實去不去、無實去不去、亦俱去不去，以作動故，譬如餘物。若無實去者，亦無三去，以去空故，譬如住者。彼俱去去者，同前驗破。如破去者，去法亦然。立義出因，引譬方便，應如此知。由依道理、阿含二種觀察，於一切時三去不成故。」 tr. “‘Real, unreal, and both real and unreal: these three kinds of goer each use none of the three goings.’ A real goer is so named through conjunction with going. A real goer does not use the three: real going does not go, unreal going does not go, and both together do not go, because they are activities, like other things. An unreal goer likewise has no three goings, because going is empty, like a stander. One both real and unreal is refuted as before. As the goer is refuted, so is going. Establish the thesis, give the reason, and use analogies accordingly. Through investigation by reasoning and āgama, the three goings fail at all times.”

Sthiramati’s version speaks instead of real existence, unreal existence, and both existence and nonexistence. The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0142b06–0142b15〕, reads: 「「若實有去法，去者不用三；不實有去法，去者不用三。」此中云何？復次頌言：「去法有不有，去者不用三。」釋曰：若或實有、若不實有，此中去者去法不用三去。若實有者，即去者去法和合。若不實有者，即去者離去法。若亦有亦不有者，二俱無性。或可實有者，去者有故。不實有者，去者不有故。亦有亦不有者，二無去法故。是故去者不用三去，所以不作是義。」 tr. “‘If the dharma of going truly exists, the goer does not use the three; if it does not truly exist, the goer does not use the three.’ What does this mean? Another verse says, ‘Whether going exists or not, the goer does not use the three.’ Whether truly existent or not, goer and going do not use the three goings. If truly existent, goer and going are conjoined. If not truly existent, the goer is apart from going. If both existent and nonexistent, neither has a nature. Alternatively, real means the goer exists; unreal means it does not; both means neither has a dharma of going. Therefore the goer does not use the three, and the claim is not made.” The three versions may be read together, but their vocabulary cannot be presumed to be word-for-word identical.

I. Dependent Establishment and the Conclusion

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005c10–0005c14〕 reads: 「如是思惟觀察，去法、去者、所去處，是法皆相因待。因去法有去者，因去者有去法，因是二法則有可去處，不得言定有、不得言定無，是故決定知，三法虛妄，空無所有，但有假名，如幻如化。」 tr. “Contemplated and examined in this way, going, goer, and destination all depend on one another. The goer exists because of going; going because of the goer; and the destination because of both. They cannot be called determinately existent or determinately nonexistent. Therefore one knows with certainty that the three dharmas are false, empty, and without possession of their own; they exist only as provisional designations, like an illusion or transformation.” The chapter does not conclude by installing a substance apart from activity, nor by claiming that ordinary walking is wholly absent. It places all three names within mutual dependence.

Qingmu’s commentary in T30n1564〔0005c12–0005c13〕 states: 「不得言定有、不得言定無」 tr. “They cannot be called determinately existent or determinately nonexistent.” This is the chapter’s explicit guardrail: refuting fixed nature does not fall into fixed nonexistence, while preserving dependent establishment does not reinstate fixed existence.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0064c23–0064c26〕, reads: 「雖無去者，而世諦中意欲為因，次生功用，風界自在，處邊無間，諸行聚起，時節差別，剎那剎那前後相異。此等起故，名為去者。」 tr. “Although no goer exists, within conventional truth intention and desire serve as causes; exertion then arises, the wind element operates freely, aggregates of activity arise without interval at the edge of a place, times differ, and preceding and following moments differ. Because these arise, one is called a goer.” The Mahāyāna Commentary on the Middle Contemplation, T30n1567〔0141b20–0141b22〕, reads: 「此中應知，風界動轉即有去者，身等動發往方處相此乃名去，非去者去法二性別異。」 tr. “Know here that when the wind element moves, there is a goer; the bodily movement toward a direction and place is called going. Goer and going are not two separate natures.” The wind element and bodily movement are the alternative commentaries’ specific explanations of conventional establishment; they are not attributed to Qingmu.

The Prajñā Lamp Commentary, T30n1566〔0065b24–0065b28〕, reads: 「「是故去無性，去者亦復然，去時及諸法，一切無所有。」釋曰：如先立驗破去去者，諸餘作法亦應例遮。此品中明去無自性者，欲令信解無來無去別緣起義，是故得成。」 tr. “‘Therefore going has no nature, and so does the goer; the time of going and all dharmas have no possession of their own.’ As going and goer were refuted through the preceding demonstration, all other activities should be denied by analogy. This chapter clarifies that going has no intrinsic nature so that one may trust and understand the distinct meaning of dependent origination as neither coming nor going; therefore the argument is established.” Bhāviveka’s conclusion explicitly connects 「無性」 tr. “absence of intrinsic nature” with 「別緣起義」 tr. “the distinct meaning of dependent origination.” This is its express inheritance of the meaning.

Divergent Readings of the Masters (Jizang’s Specialized Commentary)

Jizang first gives a comprehensive judgment on the chapter’s architecture. His Commentary on the Treatise on the Middle, T42n1824〔0054c03–0054c10〕, reads: 「品廣分為七，處中為四，略說二周。所言七者，初以三時門破去法、二以三時門破去者、三以三時門破初發、四以三時門破住住者、五以一異門破去去者、六以因緣門破去去者、七以定不定門破去去者。次明處中開四門者，從能破門為名者，第一三時門破、二者一異門破、三者因緣門破、四者有無門破。」 tr. “Broadly the chapter has seven divisions, intermediately four, and briefly two rounds. The seven are: first, refuting going through the gateway of the three times; second, refuting the goer through that gateway; third, refuting initial setting forth through it; fourth, refuting standing and stander through it; fifth, refuting going and goer through identity and difference; sixth, through causes and conditions; seventh, through fixed and unfixed. The intermediate four are named after the means of refutation: the three times, identity and difference, causes and conditions, and existence and nonexistence.” The seven unfold according to what is refuted, while the four gather them according to the refuting method. These are a commentator’s divisions, not chapter headings authored by Nāgārjuna’s verses.

Jizang establishes the chapter’s terms one by one from the condition of moving a foot. His Commentary on the Treatise on the Middle, T42n1824〔0055c02–0055c09〕, reads: 「如人靜坐直是人耳，正動一足便名去者，因此之動稱為去法亦名去業。將步之前名為未去，足動所經名為已去，取其現動名為去時。取其初動目之為發，當步之動名之為是去，餘步形此名為異去，足之所履稱為去處。然即眾緣和合虛受其名，諦觀察之無一可得。而著相者謂有決定，是故論主就而求之也。」 tr. “A person sitting still is simply a person; when one foot moves, the person is called a goer, and that motion is called the dharma or act of going. Before the step is not yet gone; the place crossed by the moving foot is already gone; present motion is the time of going. Initial motion is setting forth; the current step’s motion is this going; other steps compared with it are different going; and where the foot treads is destination. These names are falsely received through the conjunction of many conditions; examined truly, not one can be found. Those attached to marks deem them fixed, so the treatise author searches them.” This passage expressly gathers all the chapter’s terminology as names received through the conjunction of conditions.

Regarding the fault of two goings, Jizang carries the argument into body and mind. His commentary, T42n1824〔0056b04–0056b09〕, reads: 「「一謂為去時」者，此是以一去法為時體也。「二謂去時去」者，復有一法假時而去。問：此有何過耶？答：既有二法即有二時，若有一時應有一法，豈一時之中而有兩去法耶？又去法名身動，既有兩動便有二身二色陰也。色陰既二，四心豈一耶？」 tr. “‘One constitutes the time of going’ means one dharma of going forms the body of that time. ‘The second goes at the time of going’ means another dharma goes by relying on that time. What fault follows? Two dharmas mean two times. If one time has one dharma, how can one time contain two goings? Going names bodily motion; two motions mean two bodies and two form aggregates. With two form aggregates, how could the four mental aggregates be one?” His commentary, T42n1824〔0056b12–0056b16〕, continues: 「二去法是二色陰，既有二色陰即成於二人，若唯有一人亦但有一法，故復進退屈也。又若言法二而人一，亦應人二法一也。下半釋並者，以離法無人，故法二即人二也。」 tr. “Two goings are two form aggregates, and two form aggregates make two persons. If there is only one person, there is only one dharma. If two dharmas and one person were allowed, one might equally have two persons and one dharma. The latter half explains their conjunction: apart from a dharma there is no person, so two dharmas are two persons.” The inference from two goings to two times, bodies, and persons is Jizang’s unfolding of Qingmu’s fault of 「二去者」 tr. “two goers.”

In the gateway of initial setting forth, Jizang divides setting forth as cause and going as effect, then refutes time as a support. His commentary, T42n1824〔0058a10–0058a16〕, reads: 「若未發有時，可從時中發；未發竟無時，從何處發耶？問：未發何故無時耶？答：發是動發之法，因法故有時；未發則無法，無法云何有時耶？問：若爾，今因發故有時，可得從時中發耶？答：若因發有時，即時無自體，時無自體即發無所賴，云何得從時中發耶？」 tr. “If time existed before setting forth, setting forth could arise within it. Before setting forth there is no time at all; from where could it arise? Why is there no time before setting forth? Setting forth is a dharma of moving forth, and time exists through the dharma. Before setting forth there is no dharma; without a dharma, how can time exist? If time now exists through setting forth, can setting forth arise within it? If time exists through setting forth, time has no body of its own; then setting forth has no support. How could it arise from time?” If time is established through setting forth, it cannot in turn become a self-existent container for setting forth.

When refuting standing, Jizang does not allow stillness to become a substance apart from motion. His commentary, T42n1824〔0058b11–0058b16〕, reads: 「「問曰無去無去者應有住住者」，第二以三時門破住。破住二意：一先破動、今破靜，令悟四儀宛然而未曾動靜；二破住為成破去。上就去門破去，今就住門破去。既其見住則去心必生，今破其住則無靜對動，則去心都息。」 tr. “‘Question: If there is no going or goer, there should be standing and a stander.’ Second comes refuting standing through the three times. This has two purposes. First motion was refuted, now stillness, so one awakens amid the evident four postures without ever falling into motion or stillness. Second, refuting standing completes the refutation of going. Going was refuted through going; now it is refuted through standing. Seeing standing necessarily produces a mind of going. Refute standing, leave no stillness opposed to motion, and the mind of going wholly rests.” What rests is clinging to the poles of motion and stillness, not the manifest four bodily postures.

In the identity–difference gateway, Jizang first uses agent and action to show that goer and going cannot be one, then lists five separations entailed by difference. His commentary, T42n1824〔0060a04–0060a11〕, reads: 「汝既得異，應得相離。相離有五：一者東西離，去若在東者應居西。二者有無離，未有去法應先有去人，未有去人應先有去法。三存亡離，去人死去法應存，去法亡去人應在。四去住離，去法自去而人自住，去人自去而去法應住。五不相成異，人法既異則不相成，如牛二角。」 tr. “If difference is obtained, separation should be obtained. There are five separations. First, east–west: if going is in the east, the goer should reside in the west. Second, existence–nonexistence: before going there should be a goer; before a goer, going. Third, persistence–perishing: when the goer dies, going should persist; when going perishes, the goer should remain. Fourth, going–standing: going should go by itself while the person stands, or the person go while going stands. Fifth, failure to establish one another: if person and dharma differ, they do not establish each other, like a cow’s two horns.” These five separations unfold the consequences of 「異」 tr. “difference” rather than stopping with one conclusion.

In the fixed–unfixed gateway, Jizang connects the poles with permanence and annihilation, and reality and provisionality. His commentary, T42n1824〔0061a23–0061a28〕, reads: 「若定有即常，常無有去；定無則斷，斷令誰去耶？又決定則不因法有人，人本實有；不決定即是因法有人，人本實無。此二即總該一切。不因法有人，人是常人；因法有人，人是無常人。又不因法有人，人是實人；因法有人，人是假人。破此二，即一切皆盡。」 tr. “Fixed existence is permanence, and what is permanent has no going. Fixed nonexistence is annihilation; who could go once annihilated? The fixed means a person exists independently of a dharma and is originally real. The unfixed means a person exists through a dharma and was originally unreal. These two encompass all. A person independent of dharmas is permanent; one dependent on dharmas impermanent. A person independent of dharmas is real; one dependent on dharmas provisional. Refute both and all is exhausted.” This reveals that fixing a goer as inherently present apart from dharmas falls into permanent reality, while fixing the goer as originally absent with nothing dependent falls into annihilating absence; the person provisionally established through dharmas cannot be congealed into a third intrinsic body.

The commentary ends with illusory walking to prevent refutation of intrinsic nature from being mistaken for annihilating absence. Jizang’s commentary, T42n1824〔0061c12–0061c13〕, reads: 「幻去宛然，豈是定無？幻去非去，豈是定有？」 tr. “Illusory going is plainly present—how could it be fixed nonexistence? Illusory going is not real going—how could it be fixed existence?” This mirror corresponds to Qingmu’s 「不得言定有、不得言定無」 tr. “cannot be called determinately existent or determinately nonexistent” and 「但有假名，如幻如化」 tr. “exist only as provisional designations, like an illusion or transformation.” Jizang’s development must remain in the carried-forward layer and not eclipse the root verse or Qingmu’s commentary.

Terminology

Doctrinal Outline

Direct measurement of the source gives thirty-seven long-prose blocks, twenty-two verse groups, and fifty verse lines. Neither verse groups nor verse lines directly equal a verse count. According to the meaning of the base text, the chapter divides into nine argumentative joints:

1. Seeking going in the three times〔T30 0003c06–0004a01〕;
2. Establishing another going at the time of going, thereby producing two goings and two goers〔0004a01–0004a22〕;
3. Mutual dependence of goer and going; goer, non-goer, and third goer all fail〔0004a22–0004b20〕;
4. Seeking initial setting forth in the three times〔0004b20–0004c02〕;
5. The same reasoning applies to stander and to all continuation and cessation〔0004c02–0005a19〕;
6. Going and goer are neither identical nor different〔0005a19–0005b10〕;
7. The goer can use neither this going nor a different going〔0005b10–0005b24〕;
8. Neither fixed nor unfixed going and goer can stand〔0005b24–0005c09〕;
9. Going, goer, and destination mutually depend; provisional designation is like an illusion〔0005c09–0005c15〕.

Jizang’s seven gateways gather the second, third, and other joints within the three-time refutations of going and goer; he then makes an intermediate division through four refuting gateways: the three times, identity and difference, causes and conditions, and existence and nonexistence. Both classifications serve a purpose. This apparatus prioritizes a sequence that readers can follow passage by passage and does not rename Jizang’s original divisions.

Old Guanzhong Learning · Translation History

The transmitted identity of this chapter remains that stated at the head of the scroll: verses by Nāgārjuna, commentary by Qingmu, translation by Kumārajīva. Verse and prose must be read in distinct layers. The examples 「如器中有果」 tr. “as fruit is contained in a vessel,” 「如先有人、有城邑」 tr. “as when a person and city exist first,” the succession of grain and sprout, and the twelve links of dependent origination all occur in Qingmu’s prose and are not passed off as Nāgārjuna’s verse. T1566 and T1567 each preserve a different arrangement of verse and commentary; they are drawn only at parallel loci and their prose is not used to supplement Kumārajīva’s recension.

Seng Rui’s preface records that Qingmu’s commentary was 「裁而裨之」 tr. “edited and supplemented” in the translation workshop, indicating a history of translation and editorial arrangement in the received prose. The chapter itself, however, has no sentence-level markers that could distinguish words by Qingmu from workshop interventions. This apparatus therefore calls the transmitted layer 「青目釋」 tr. “Qingmu’s commentary” throughout and makes no unsupported finer division.

Cross-Reading with the Yogācāra Axis (Emptiness and Existence)

Parallel evidence for this chapter is already supplied fully by T1566 and T1567. Their respective statements 「世諦中二相異」 tr. “the two marks differ in conventional truth,” 「風界動轉即有去者」 tr. “when the wind element moves there is a goer,” and 「身等動發往方處相此乃名去」 tr. “bodily movement toward a direction and place is called going” stand only as their own explanations of dependent establishment. This apparatus does not import later classifications of emptiness and existence or elevate a reading from one commentary into wording supposedly shared by all three.

Cross-Reading with Other Treatises of the Same Lineage

This chapter first uses agent and action to show that goer and going cannot be identical. The later “Examination of Action and Agent” unfolds agent, action, the means employed in acting, and karmic result into a chapter of their own. This is only a marker of internal correspondence, not a substitution of later evidence for this chapter. In the section on continuation and cessation, Qingmu uses grain continuing through sprout, stalk, and leaf, and ignorance conditioning formations through aging-and-death, to explain succession and interruption. This returns to the gateway of mutual dependence in “Examination of Conditions”: continuation and cessation can be established through conditions, but no permanent unitary subject may be added on that account.

Position of the Editions

This collation covers nine joints: the three times, two goings, goer, initial setting forth, standing, identity and difference, same and different going, fixed and unfixed, and dependent provisional designation. Every quotation was freshly retrieved from the original marked canon files. There are no modern scholars, no modern Sanskrit editions, and no unmarked rewriting across recensions. Alternative commentaries and Jizang’s developments stand only in their respective layers.