大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 60.92

60.92

Regarding the commentary's "Second, its own nature is not established as real" and below, the text of the commentary has four parts: First, a general explanation of the name. Second, from "That is, the three lines below" and below, a specific explanation of the sūtra text. Third, from "In terms of transition and cessation across the three time periods" and below, a concluding indication of the text's intended meaning. In the sūtra, "arising from the past extremity" is the meaning of arising; now, because it does not arise from [the past], it is called "non-arising." "Going toward the future extremity" is the meaning of cessation; now, because it does not go toward [the future], it is called "non-cessation." It should also be non-abiding; non-abiding applies both to non-arising and non-cessation. In contrast to arising and cessation being the meaning of impermanence, showing non-arising and non-cessation is [also] the meaning of impermanence, which accords with the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. Fourth, from "Here, the three times are in terms of the approach of continuity" and below, distinguishing the different approaches. That is to say, in the various sūtras and treatises, the discrimination of phenomena is twofold: First, the approach of continuity discriminates a single phenomenon with reference to the three times; one should know that this phenomenon comes from the past and proceeds toward the future life. It is like a person saying: "I have come from birth and am heading toward old age." The present passage adopts this approach, and therefore says "not arising from the past extremity," and so forth. Second, contrasting distinct phenomena by means of the three times is called the approach of arising and cessation. In this case, a single phenomenon becomes three according to time; viewing the three phenomena in relation to each other, the past has already gone, the future is just coming, and the present now abides. Thus the commentary cites the Sarvāstivādins: "entering the present from the treasury of the future," and so on; then having passed away is termed "the past." Passing away and turning away from the present is called "going." Being yet to come is termed "the future." A phenomenon that is about to arise, tending toward the present, is called "coming." Alternatively, coming is its present sense, and a future phenomenon not yet manifested is called "the future." Now it is termed the present phenomenon; because it abides in the present characteristic, it is called "the present." It is based on this approach that the meaning of non-arising and non-cessation is discriminated. Now it is based on the former approach; therefore, with regard to the meaning of the future, one could fully state: "the past has already ceased, the future has not yet arrived, and the present does not abide; therefore there is no arising or cessation." Now, relying on the former approach, with regard to the future it is conversely termed "not going." Therefore it concludes: "The two approaches are different."