成唯識論述記 2.359

2.359

此說一相者，謂說生滅等總名無常，非常相故。八十一云：有起盡故是無常也，即是生、滅等合名無常。如《瑜伽論》五十二說：若由此相起厭思惟，但說為相，能起厭患、離欲、解脫。本無今有，生；有已還無，滅，名無常相，故經說一，謂即無常。何故生、滅等合名無常？以有非恒有，無非恒無故。無非恒無，所以言生；有非恒有，所以言滅。無為有而恒有；無法無而恒無，以二常相。今此有為，有不恒有，不同無為；無不恒無，不同兔角，故合名無常。無彼有、無之常相故，此非即是四中滅相，亦兼生故。住、異與生，同一世有故合說。說二相者，《瑜伽論》說：生及住、異俱生所顯，故住、異二合為一分，建立生品；於第二分建立滅品。此法有時，名為生品；若後無常，名為滅品。令諸弟子應隨觀住，八不翻此，為除執著故但說二，更不說餘。又無常相起厭思惟，即是此中說二所以。說三相者，謂：一、生；二、滅；三、住異性。《瑜伽論》說：由一切行三世所顯，由未來世本無而生；彼既生已落謝過去；現在世法二相所顯，謂住及異，唯現在法有住可得，前後變異亦唯現在，總說住、異而為一相，似同《俱舍》第二師說，然世不同。說四相者，義用四故。然今此引三相之經，共許經也。

Stating one characteristic means speaking of arising, ceasing, and so forth collectively as impermanence, because it is the characteristic of non-permanence. Fascicle 81 says: 'Because there is arising and ending, it is impermanent'—that is, arising, ceasing, and so forth are collectively called impermanence. As Yogācārabhūmi fascicle 52 states: 'If contemplation of revulsion arises by virtue of this characteristic, it is merely spoken of as a characteristic, able to give rise to revulsion, dispassion, and liberation.' Not having existed previously and existing now is arising; having existed and then becoming non-existent is cessation: this is called the characteristic of impermanence. Therefore the sūtra mentions one, namely impermanence. Why are arising, ceasing, and so forth collectively called impermanence? Because existence is not permanently existent, and non-existence is not permanently non-existent. Non-existence not being permanently non-existent is why arising is spoken of; existence not being permanently existent is why cessation is spoken of. Unconditioned phenomena are existent and permanently existent; non-existent phenomena are non-existent and permanently non-existent: these are two permanent characteristics. Now, these conditioned phenomena: their existence is not permanently existent, unlike unconditioned phenomena; their non-existence is not permanently non-existent, unlike a hare's horn; therefore they are collectively called impermanent. This is because they lack those permanent characteristics of existence and non-existence. This is not merely the characteristic of cessation among the four, because it also includes arising. Duration and deterioration exist in the same time period as production, so they are spoken of collectively. As for stating two characteristics, Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Production, as well as duration and deterioration, are manifested by co-arising'; hence duration and deterioration are combined into one division, establishing the class of production, and in the second division establishing the class of cessation. When this phenomenon exists, it is called the class of production; if it is later impermanent, it is called the class of cessation. Disciples are instructed to abide contemplating accordingly. The eight negations reverse this; to remove attachment, only two are stated, without mentioning the others. Furthermore, contemplation of revulsion arising from the characteristic of impermanence is the reason for speaking of two here. As for stating three characteristics, they are: (1) production, (2) cessation, and (3) the nature of duration-and-deterioration. Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Because all conditioned phenomena are manifested in the three time periods: from the future period, having previously been non-existent, they arise; having arisen, they fall away into the past; present phenomena are manifested by two characteristics, namely duration and deterioration.' Only present phenomena can be found to have duration, and earlier and later alteration is also only in the present; duration and deterioration are spoken of collectively as a single characteristic, seemingly identical to the second master in the Abhidharmakośa, yet the time periods differ. Stating four characteristics is because there are four functional meanings. However, this sūtra cited here which speaks of three characteristics is a mutually accepted sūtra.