瑜伽師地論略纂 9.44

9.44

The treatise says: "Having thus observed the impermanence of alteration by the power of predominant manaskāra of direct perception"—this recapitulates and concludes the preceding. Up to "one should correctly infer," and so forth, it clarifies that while the gross destruction of the various forms and the like is easy to know, momentary arising and ceasing are difficult to know because they are subtle. Now, wishing to explain this, it first opens the topic. From "How does one infer?" down to "Therefore, conditioned formations must certainly have momentary arising and ceasing," it clarifies that because of the presence of minor, subtle arising and ceasing, there can be gross alterative arising and ceasing, not that one knows the existence of gross arising and ceasing from seeing minor arising and ceasing. From "Because they exist due to the combination of various conditions" down to "Having arisen, they perish naturally without waiting for conditions of destruction," it clarifies and resolves an implicit objection that ceasing has conditions. The implicit objection asks: "Is it known whether arising and ceasing both have conditions or not?" Now it resolves this: these dharmas have arising because of the combination of various conditions; arising thus has conditions, but [dharmas] perish naturally without waiting for conditions, meaning that the dharma of ceasing has no conditions.