[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823) › 1.22 # 俱舍論頌疏論本 1.22 俱舍論頌疏論本 1.22 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1.22) 論主評云：「法救執法有轉變故，應置數論外道朋中，以數論宗執法有轉變故也。妙音所立，世相雜亂，三世皆有三世相故。覺天所立，世還雜亂，一世法中應有三世，謂過去世有多剎那，前後剎那應名去來，中名現在。未來現在類亦應然。故此四中，第三世友立世最善。」依經部宗，過、未無體，唯現世有。今詳世親著論宗旨，有其兩種：一者顯宗，即一切有，故下文云：「迦濕彌羅議理成，我多依彼釋對法。」既言依彼釋對法藏，故知此論有部為宗。二者密宗，所謂經部，故下文云：「經部所說，不違理故。」此一部論，多將經部破薩婆多，故知世親密意所許，經部為宗，此上不同。第二明宗旨竟。 > The author of the treatise evaluates them, saying: "Because Dharmatrāta posits transformation of dharmas, he should be placed among the Sāṃkhya non-Buddhists, for the Sāṃkhya school holds that dharmas undergo transformation. As for what Ghoṣaka established, the temporal characteristics are conflated, since all three times would possess the characteristics of all three times. In what Buddhadeva established, the times are also conflated, for within the dharmas of a single time, all three times would be present: since the past time contains many moments, the earlier and later moments should be called past and future, and the middle one called the present; the future and present would likewise follow suit. Therefore, among these four, the third, Vasumitra, established the times best." According to the Sautrāntika school, past and future have no substantial reality; only the present time exists. Now, when examining the fundamental tenets upon which Vasubandhu composed this treatise, there are two kinds: First, the explicit tenet, which is the Sarvāstivāda. Hence a verse below says: "The principles settled by the Kaśmīra \[masters\] are well established; / I largely rely upon them to explain the Abhidharma." Since it says that he relies upon them to explain the \*Abhidharmakośa\*, we know that this treatise takes the Sarvāstivāda school as its explicit tenet. Second, the implicit tenet, which is the Sautrāntika. Hence a verse below says: "Because what the Sautrāntikas state does not contradict reason." Throughout this treatise, he mostly uses the Sautrāntika to refute the Sarvāstivāda; hence we know that what Vasubandhu intended in his heart takes the Sautrāntika as its tenet. Such are the differences above. The second section, clarifying the fundamental doctrine, is concluded. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1.21) - [Next: 1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1.23) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823~en-mt.1.22) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1.22) · Pramāṇa