俱舍論疏 6.31

6.31

On the Śāstra's stating, "First, in terms of time [...] and falling into one single time period": This expands time into four [aspects], namely: having the same arising, having the same staying, having the same cessation, and falling into one single time period. Question: Why is it that among the four characteristics only three are stated, while the characteristic of difference is not stated? Answer: This is because here, identity of time is manifested through arising, which shows being together in the future and about to enter the present; cessation manifests that activity is in the present and entering into the past; staying manifests that this phenomenon grasps its fruit in the present, thereby demonstrating that the time of the three time periods—future, present, and past—is identical. The single characteristic of difference lacks the ability to manifest time, and therefore it is not stated here. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Does not merely stating 'having the same arising, staying, and cessation' already make it known that they also fall into one single time period? Although it is indeed immediately known that they fall into one single time period, it would still not be understood that this phenomenon and the mind are also not separated in the past and the future. Alternatively, it is to demonstrate those phenomena that do not arise." Commentary: Although one says 'having the same arising, staying, and cessation' and thus being in the same time period, one would not yet know that prior to the characteristic of arising in the future, and subsequent to the characteristic of cessation in the past, this phenomenon and the mind are likewise not separated; or, fearing that one might doubt that phenomena that do not arise—which do not share the same arising, staying, and cessation with the mind—are not coexistent causes, it is therefore said that they 'fall into one single time period.' The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "If so, one should merely say 'falling into one single time period.' Otherwise, it would fail to make it known that they definitely fall into one single time period." Commentary: If one only said 'falling into one single time period,' it would not make it known that they definitely fall into one single time period, because although they are together in the future, if they arise at a later time they would not be in the same time period. Though they were previously in the same time period, they would not be in the same time period later; if one did not speak of sharing arising, cessation, and so forth, it would fail to make it known that they definitely fall into one single time period. By further stating 'having the same arising, cessation,' and so forth, one knows that they are definitely in one single time period and that there is necessarily no before or after.