俱舍論記 20.71

20.71

「毘婆沙師至多剎那故」者，釋第四句此法性甚深。毘婆沙師作如是說：過去、未來如現實有。論主廣申經部，難我所有於中不能通釋。彼過難者、諸自愛者應如是知：法性甚深，非是尋求思量境界。豈以我部不能通釋，汝經部師便撥為無？「有異門」下，又更別出法性甚深，不應非撥。然諸法理種種不同有異門故，此法生即此法滅，謂色等五蘊各別自生，即色等五蘊各別自滅。有異門故，異法生、異法滅，謂未來世餘色等生現在世，餘受等滅。故《婆沙》七十六云「問：為此法生即此法滅？為餘法生餘法滅耶？設爾何失？二俱有過。所以者何？若此法生即此法滅者，應未來生即未來滅；若餘法生餘法滅者，應色等生餘受等滅。答：應作是說，有因緣故說此法生即此法滅，謂色蘊生即色蘊滅，乃至識蘊生即識蘊滅。有因緣故說餘法生餘法滅，謂未來世生現在世滅（已上論文）。」有異門故於未來世中即世名生，以正生時未來世所攝故。有異門故說世有生，未來世有多剎那故。於中唯有一剎那生，餘未生世法有生相時故。故《婆沙》云「問：諸有為法未來生時，為世體生？為世中生？設爾何失？二俱有過。所以者何？若世體生者，一法生時應未來世一切法生。此既生已，應無未來；此復已滅，應無現在，便壞三世一切有義。若世中生者，云何說諸行非異世耶？答：應作是說，有因緣故說世體生，以一剎那行生時即是未來世生故。有因緣故說世中生，未來世行有多剎那，於中唯一剎那生故。

Regarding [the passage] from "The Vaibhāṣikas [say]" up to "because there are many moments": this explains the fourth line, "this nature of dharmas is exceedingly profound." The Vaibhāṣikas say as follows: Past and future are real existents just like the present. The author of the śāstra has extensively set forth the Sautrāntika position and raised objections against our doctrine that we cannot fully resolve. Those critics and those who cherish themselves should understand thus: the nature of dharmas is exceedingly profound and is not an object of reasoning and deliberation. Could it be that just because our school cannot fully resolve [these objections], you Sautrāntikas can simply deny their existence? From "there are different approaches" onward, it further points out that the nature of dharmas is exceedingly profound and should not be denied. However, because the principles of dharmas are manifold and different, there are different approaches: this dharma arises and this [very] dharma ceases—that is, the five skandhas such as form individually arise by themselves, and these very five skandhas such as form individually cease by themselves. Because there are different approaches, a different dharma arises and a different dharma ceases—that is, in the future period other form and so on arise, while in the present period other sensations and so on cease. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle seventy-six, says: "Question: Does this dharma arise and this [very] dharma cease, or does another dharma arise and another dharma cease? If so, what is the fault? Both have faults. Why? If this dharma arises and this [very] dharma ceases, then that which arises in the future should cease in the future; if another dharma arises and another dharma ceases, then when form arises, other sensation and so on should cease. Answer: It should be stated as follows: due to certain causes and conditions it is said that this dharma arises and this [very] dharma ceases, which means that when the form skandha arises, the form skandha ceases, up to when the consciousness skandha arises, the consciousness skandha ceases. Due to certain causes and conditions it is said that another dharma arises and another dharma ceases, which means that what arises in the future ceases in the present (end of citation from the treatise)." Because there are different approaches, within the future period the period itself is called arising, since at the moment of arising it is subsumed under the future period. Because there are different approaches, it is said that there is arising within the period, because the future period contains many moments; among them, only a single moment arises, while the remaining unarisen dharmas of that period have the characteristic of arising. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā* says: "Question: When conditioned dharmas arise in the future, does the substance of the period arise, or does [something] arise within the period? If so, what is the fault? Both have faults. Why? If the substance of the period arises, then when one dharma arises, all dharmas of the future period should arise. Once this has arisen, there should be no future; and once this has ceased, there should be no present, which would destroy the doctrine of the existence of all three periods. If [something] arises within the period, how can it be said that the saṃskāras are not different from the period? Answer: It should be stated as follows: due to certain causes and conditions it is said that the substance of the period arises, because when the saṃskāras of a single moment arise, that is precisely the arising of the future period. Due to certain causes and conditions it is said that [something] arises within the period, because the saṃskāras of the future period contain many moments, and among them only a single moment arises."