仁王經疏 1.272

1.272

釋曰：自下第二以生等相釋成空義。文別有二：初就識蘊以釋空義、後「乃至」下類釋四蘊及一切法。前中有四：一標宗、二類釋、三徵詰、四釋通。此即標宗。謂五蘊中有五相故，說名為空。言即生等，自有二義：一就體說。即謂大乘宗，諸識生時從因而起，假說為生，是不相應行蘊所攝。以此假故，不同薩婆多實而非假，不相應故。不同經部即說色等名為生等。二依時名。即諸說不同。薩婆多宗，生在未來，住滅二相皆在現在。於現在中自有兩說。一云：二相即有前後；一云：二相無有前後。《大毘婆沙》具有兩說，順正理師說無前後。今依大乘，生住二相皆有現在，自有兩說：一勝軍師云二相前後，先生後住；二護法等說無前後。故《成唯識》破上坐部：如何一念而有二時？是故依時，亦名即也。如是諸法不成實故，即有即空。

Exposition: Below, this is the second part: explaining and establishing the meaning of emptiness by means of characteristics such as arising. The text has two parts: first, explaining the meaning of emptiness in terms of the consciousness aggregate; and later, from “and so forth” onward, analogously explaining the [other] four aggregates and all dharmas. The former has four points: 1. presenting the thesis, 2. analogous explanation, 3. inquiry, 4. resolving explanation. This is presenting the thesis. It means that because there are five characteristics in the five aggregates, they are called empty. As for the words “precisely arise” and so on, they naturally have two meanings: First, explaining in terms of substance. This means that according to the Mahāyāna school, when the various consciousnesses arise, they originate from causes and are nominally designated as “arising,” which is subsumed under the non-concomitant saṃskāra-skandha. Because it is nominal, it is unlike the Sarvāstivāda, where it is real and not nominal because it is non-concomitant; and unlike the Sautrāntika, which says that matter and so forth are themselves called arising and so forth. Second, designating according to time. That is, various theories differ. In the Sarvāstivāda school, arising is in the future, while the two characteristics of abiding and cessation are both in the present. Regarding the present, there are itself two views: one says the two characteristics have before and after; one says the two characteristics have no before and after. The Mahāvibhāṣā has both views; the Nyāyānusāra masters say there is no before and after. Now, according to the Mahāyāna, the two characteristics of arising and abiding are both in the present, which itself has two theories: one is Master Jayasena, who says the two characteristics are sequential, arising first and abiding later; the second is Dharmapāla and others, who say there is no before and after. Thus the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi refutes the Sthaviras: How could one thought-moment have two times? Therefore, according to time, it is also called “precisely.” Because such dharmas are not truly real, they are both existent and empty.