成唯識論述記 2.358

2.358

述曰：此即第二外人引經證有實相。此中應言：有三有為之相，有為是所相法。有三之相者，即顯有為有三能相也，重言之，有為者，此屬能相，顯法有此。體是有為，是緣生性，非如白鷺，表水非無；亦非如童女相，表法是善、不善。不重言有為，疑表有為有，或表有為通善、惡性。今為簡此重言有為。又此之言即第六轉，是依士釋，故知離法別有相體，非無異法可說之言。問：既有四相，何故此經但說三種？《俱舍》二說，初云除住，若法令行三世遷流，經說為相生，遷未來法令流入現在；異、滅遷現法令流入過去，令其衰異及壞滅故。如三怨敵見怨處林，牽出、衰力，損壞其命；住於彼法攝受、安立，樂不相離，不說相中。又無為法有自相住，住相濫彼，故經不說。然經說住異，是此異別名；如生名起，滅名為盡。第二師說，即此經中住、異合說，名住異相；住是有情所愛著處，為令生厭，與異合說，如示黑耳與吉祥俱。乃至廣說者，謂有為之起亦可了知，如《樞要》說。然今大乘釋經說者，文各不同，或說一相，謂四嗢柁南中取諸行無常；或說二相，謂璽弟子應觀諸法生滅而住；或八不中不生不滅；或說三相，如此經說三有為相；或說四相。處處皆同，有何密意作此說？

The Commentary states: This is the second: the opponent quotes scripture to prove that there are substantial characteristics. Here it should say: 'There are three characteristics of the conditioned.' 'Conditioned' is the phenomenon characterized. Saying 'there are three characteristics' reveals that the conditioned has three characterizing entities. Stating 'conditioned' repeatedly belongs to the characterizing entities, revealing that the phenomenon possesses this. Its substance is conditioned, of a dependently arisen nature; it is not like a white egret indicating that water is not absent, nor like the bodily marks of a young maiden indicating that a phenomenon is wholesome or unwholesome. If 'conditioned' were not stated repeatedly, one might suspect that it merely indicates that the conditioned exists, or indicates that the conditioned encompasses wholesome and unwholesome natures. Now, to exclude this, 'conditioned' is stated repeatedly. Furthermore, the word 'of' is the sixth case (genitive), which is a tatpuruṣa compound; therefore we know that apart from the phenomenon there is a separate substance of the characteristic, and not that there is no distinct phenomenon of which it can be spoken. Question: Since there are four characteristics, why does this sūtra mention only three? In the Abhidharmakośa there are two explanations. The first says: omitting duration (sthiti). If a phenomenon causes the conditioned to flow through the three time periods, the sūtra speaks of it as a characteristic: production causes future phenomena to flow into the present; deterioration and cessation cause present phenomena to flow into the past, because they cause it to decline, change, and be destroyed. Just as three enemies see their foe in a forest, drag him out, weaken his strength, and destroy his life. Duration embraces and stabilizes that phenomenon, delighting in non-separation; therefore it is not mentioned among the characteristics. Furthermore, unconditioned phenomena possess the duration of their own specific characteristics; the characteristic of duration would be confused with them, so the sūtra does not mention it. However, the sūtra's mention of 'duration-and-change' is another name for this deterioration; just as production is named arising, and cessation is named ending. The second master says: In this very sūtra, duration and deterioration are stated together, named the characteristic of 'duration-deterioration.' Duration is that to which sentient beings are attached; in order to engender revulsion, it is spoken together with deterioration, just as showing Kālakarnī accompanying Lakṣmī. 'And so on in detail' refers to: 'the arising of the conditioned is also cognizable,' as explained in the Shunyao. However, as for how the Mahāyāna now interprets the sūtra's statements, the texts vary: some state one characteristic, namely among the four udānas taking 'all conditioned phenomena are impermanent'; some state two characteristics, namely saying that disciples should contemplate phenomena abiding in arising and cessation; or, among the eight negations, 'neither arising nor ceasing'; or stating three characteristics, like this sūtra stating the three characteristics of the conditioned; or stating four characteristics. They are identical everywhere; with what hidden intention are these stated?