法華玄論 4.121

4.121

問：兩念相續者，前念滅故後起續、前不滅故後起續？前若滅者，後何所續？不滅則常，何勞後續？具如論破。又問：實法則滅前，而兩相續則轉變。今請問之，如乳變為酪復有乳滅義者，為是一乳耶？為二乳？若一乳者，實法滅則無復乳，何所變？若言變者，復何得滅耶？若一體者，滅則不得變、變則不得滅，若一滅一變則成二乳也。問曰：只是一乳，而乳兩義，舉體實滅、舉體轉變。難曰：實法滅者但是乳義滅而乳體亦滅耶？若但義滅則乳體不滅，則乳義無常而體應是常。若言體義皆滅則無復體義，復何所轉？欲見此意，《中論》廣明。以此推之則無相續，既無相續則無至佛理，有何一乘？當知有所得義無有乘義。

Question: Regarding the continuity of two mind-moments, does the subsequent arise in continuation because the prior mind-moment has perished, or does the subsequent arise in continuation because the prior has not perished? If the prior has perished, what does the subsequent continue? If it has not perished, it is eternal; why bother with subsequent continuation? It is fully refuted as in the treatises. Furthermore, it is asked: The actual phenomenon perishes in the prior, and the continuity of the two constitutes transformation. Now let me ask: just as milk transforms into curds and also has the sense of milk perishing, is this one milk, or two milks? If it is one milk, then when the actual phenomenon perishes there is no longer any milk; what is transformed? If you say it transforms, how could it perish? If they are of one essence, then perishing precludes transformation, and transformation precludes perishing; if one perishes and one transforms, they become two milks. The interlocutor says: It is just one milk, but the milk has two senses: the entire essence actually perishes, and the entire essence transforms. Objection: When the actual phenomenon perishes, is it merely the sense of milk that perishes, or does the essence of the milk also perish? If only the sense perishes, then the essence of the milk does not perish, meaning the sense of milk is impermanent while its essence must be eternal. If you say both essence and sense perish, then there is no longer essence or sense; what transforms? If you wish to see this idea, it is explained at length in the Madhyamaka-śāstra. Deducing from this, there is no continuity; and since there is no continuity, there is no principle of reaching Buddhahood—how could there be a One Vehicle? One should know that the view of grasping at existence lacks the meaning of a vehicle.