俱舍論頌疏論本 20.20

20.20

釋曰：上兩句答初問，下兩句答第二問。今此部中差別有四：一類異、二相異、三位異、四待異。尊者法救作如是說：由類不同，三世有異，謂從未來至現在時，捨未來類，得現在類。若從現在流至過去，捨現在類，得過去類。但類不同，非體有異。如破金器作餘物時，形雖有殊，金色無異。尊者妙音說：相不同，三世有異，謂法在過去，正與過去相合，而不名為離現、未相，以過去相顯但名為過去，現在正與現在相合而不名為離過、未相，未來正與未來相合而不名為離過、現相，隨顯得名，准過去說。尊者世友說：位不同，三世有異，未作用位名為未來，正作用位名為現在，作用謝位名為過去，至位位中作異異說。如運一籌置一位名一，置百位名百，置千位名千，歷位有別，籌體無異。尊者覺天說：待不同，三世有異，待謂觀待，前觀於後名為過去，後觀於前名為未來，觀待前後名為現在。如一女人名女、名母，觀母名女，觀女名母。論主評云：法救執法有轉變故，應置數論外道朋中，以數論執法有轉變故也。妙音所立世相雜亂，三世皆有三世相故。覺天所立世還雜亂，三世法中應有三世，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，以約作用位立世差別故。

The explanation says: The upper two lines answer the first question; the lower two lines answer the second question. Now in this school there are four distinctions: first, difference of state; second, difference of characteristic; third, difference of position; fourth, difference of relativity. The Venerable Dharmatrāta spoke thus: Due to differences of state, the three time-periods differ; that is, when moving from the future to the present, it abandons its future state and acquires its present state. If it flows from the present to the past, it abandons its present state and acquires its past state. Only the state differs, not that the entity has differences. Just as when breaking a gold vessel to make other items, although the shape is different, the color of the gold does not differ. The Venerable Ghoṣaka stated: Because characteristics are not the same, the three time-periods differ; that is, when a dharma is in the past, it is conjoined precisely with past characteristics, yet it is not called separated from present and future characteristics, but because the past characteristic is prominent it is merely called past; when in the present, it is conjoined precisely with present characteristics, yet it is not called separated from past and future characteristics; when in the future, it is conjoined precisely with future characteristics, yet it is not called separated from past and present characteristics—it receives its name according to what is prominent, following the explanation of the past. The Venerable Vasumitra stated: Because positions are not the same, the three time-periods differ: the position where function has not yet occurred is called the future; the position where function is currently taking place is called the present; the position where function has ceased is called the past; arriving at each respective position, different explanations are made. Just as when moving a single counting-stick, placing it in the units place makes it called one, placing it in the hundreds place makes it called one hundred, and placing it in the thousands place makes it called one thousand—as it passes through the positions there are distinctions, but the entity of the counting-stick is not different. The Venerable Buddhadeva stated: Because relativity is not the same, the three time-periods differ: "relativity" means relative viewing—viewing the earlier in relation to the later is called the past; viewing the later in relation to the earlier is called the future; viewing in relation to both earlier and later is called the present. Just as a single woman is called a daughter and called a mother: viewed in relation to her mother she is called a daughter, and viewed in relation to her daughter she is called a mother. The master of the treatise comments: Because Dharmatrāta posits that dharmas undergo transformation, he should be placed in the faction of the Sāṃkhya tīrthikas, since the Sāṃkhyas posit that dharmas undergo transformation. Ghoṣaka's formulation confuses the characteristics of the time-periods, because all three time-periods would have the characteristics of the three time-periods. Buddhadeva's formulation also causes confusion among the time-periods, for within the dharmas of the three time-periods there should be the three time-periods, namely that the past time-period contains many moments, and the earlier and later moments should be called past and future, while the middle is called present. The future and present would analogously be like this as well. Therefore, among these four, the third—Vasumitra's formulation of the time-periods—is the best, because it establishes the distinctions of the time-periods based on the positions of function.