瑜伽論記 23.297

23.297

達師云：就中有三，初明空義，二、當知此中已下，破薩婆多義定有三世法體。就中有二：初破三世實有執，二、當知亦是常空我已下，例破常空、我空等。破三世中有三段文：初破後際。就中，先以道理破，若有是事已下，立量破；若言未來諸法實有體性，彼不應生，立宗；已實有故（因），如無為（喻）。言又不應有無常可得者（立宗），以常住故（因），猶如虛空（喻），既有可得已下，順結成正義也，破前際、中際，文相可知。

Master Da says: Within this there are three parts: first, clarifying the meaning of emptiness; second, from 'one should know that in this context' downward, refuting the Sarvāstivādin position that the substances of phenomena in the three times definitely exist. Within this second part there are two: first, refuting the grasping at the three times as substantially existent; second, from 'one should know that it is also empty of eternity and of self' downward, analogously refuting emptiness of eternity, emptiness of self, and so on. In refuting the three times there are three textual passages: first, refuting the future limit. Within that, it first refutes with reasoning; from 'if there were such a matter' downward, it establishes a formal inference (pramāṇa) to refute it: 'If one asserts that future phenomena possess a substantial nature, they should not arise'—this establishes the thesis; 'because they already substantially exist' (reason); 'like the unconditioned' (example). The phrase 'furthermore, it should not be that impermanence is obtainable' is the thesis; 'because it is permanent' is the reason; 'just like empty space' is the example. From 'since it is obtainable' downward, it concludes the correct doctrine in due order. The refutations of the past limit and intermediate period can be known from the text.