成唯識論述記 3.650

3.650

諸經論說雖多不同，總束而言莫過三種，一、道理三世。即依種子曾、當義，說有去、來世，當有名未來，曾有名過去，現有名現在，於現法上義說三故。二、依神通。其智生時，法爾皆有如此功力，由異生、聖者功能各殊，既非妄心，所見皆實，但由智力，非是妄識之所變也。前第二說，由澄淨故亦現彼影，由多修習此去、來法，法爾能現，隨其勢分，多少時節，理實能緣及所緣法唯在現在。三、依唯識。此義雖通，然前二外，別有異體，多分分別，妄心所變，似去、來相，實唯現在。此中論文，法體離言，但唯有識，或復更釋，雖有唯識、道理二種，無別神通，恐濫妄緣，故分三種。約此三義，解諸違文，皆並攝入此所會義，餘不過此。設立四減三皆為妄說，今猶未盡，此中所明，粗陳梗概，如《別抄》中廣引誠說。

Although the explanations across the various sūtras and treatises are diverse, summarizing them generally, they do not exceed three kinds: First, the three periods of time according to principle. That is, based on the senses of seeds having occurred or yet to occur, one speaks of the existence of past and future periods: being yet to exist is called the future, having existed is called the past, and being presently existent is called the present; it is because the three are conceptually spoken of on the basis of present dharmas. Second, based on supernormal powers. When such wisdom arises, it naturally possesses such efficacy; because the capacities of ordinary persons and noble ones are each distinct, and since it is not a deluded mind, what is perceived is entirely real, yet this is due solely to the power of wisdom, and is not what is transformed by a deluded consciousness. In the second explanation mentioned above, because of its clarity and purity, an image of that is also manifested; through repeatedly cultivating these past and future dharmas, they naturally are able to manifest, according with their momentum and the extent of time; in reality, both the cognizing [mind] and the cognized dharma are solely in the present. Third, based on consciousness-only. Although this meaning applies generally, outside the former two there is a distinct entity, for the most part conceptual discrimination transformed by the deluded mind, resembling the marks of past and future, yet in reality it is solely present. In the text of this treatise, the entities of dharmas are ineffable and there is only consciousness; or alternatively explained, although there are the two kinds of consciousness-only and principle, there are no separate supernormal powers, yet for fear of confusing them with deluded cognition, three kinds are distinguished. Using these three meanings to resolve all the conflicting texts, they are all subsumed within these reconciled meanings, and the rest does not exceed this. To establish four or reduce to two would all be false assertions; presently this is still not exhaustive, and what is clarified here merely outlines the general idea, as cited and explained at length with authoritative teachings in the Separate Notes.