成唯識論了義燈 2.68

2.68

論破正量部云：有為法滅，不待因故。問：何以得知大乘滅相，不待因耶？答：《大莊嚴論》云：又如煎水至極少位後水不生，亦非火合水方無體故。量云：許是滅故；如無為滅。准此，似將有法為因，有法為因即無有法，應所依不成過。解云：滅有多滅，取有為動滅為宗，以餘滅為因，隨取少分，故亦無過。問：無為滅可同有為耶？答：但總云許是滅故，不須分別體滅、相滅，無為既不待因，有為亦應不待，故因不得分別，又如聲無常，無常即滅，然言無常，不唯詮滅相。《顯揚》十四云：無常性者，謂三有為相共相應故。一生相，二滅相，三住異相。三相總名無常，說生復為因性，此滅亦爾。《要集》云：有抄量：有為法滅應不待因；以名滅故；猶如擇滅。有說量云：汝滅應不待因；許是滅故；如無為滅。《集》云：此二師量喻，有所立不成之失。即三無為，雖無生義，待因顯故，俱名待因。宗中應云：不待滅因滅之。此亦不爾，無為體滅，不待因顯，方名為滅，性是滅故，名之為滅。故云：應不待因故喻得成，非無所立。

The treatise refutes the Sammatīya school, saying: "The cessation of conditioned dharmas does not depend on a cause." Question: How is it known that in the Mahāyāna the characteristic of cessation does not depend on a cause? Answer: The *Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra* says: "Furthermore, it is like boiling water until it reaches an extremely minute state, after which water is no longer produced; nor is it because of combining with fire that water then lacks substance." The logical argument is: [The cessation of conditioned dharmas] is conceded to be a cessation; like the cessation of the unconditioned. Following this, it seems to take the pakṣadharma (subject) as the hetu (reason); if the pakṣadharma is the hetu, then there is no subject, which would incur the fallacy of āśrayāsiddha. Explanation: There are multiple kinds of cessation; taking the moving cessation of conditioned dharmas as the proposition (pratijñā), one takes other cessations as the hetu, taking a partial aspect as one wishes, so there is also no fault. Question: Can the cessation of the unconditioned be identical to that of the conditioned? Answer: One merely says generally, "Because it is conceded to be a cessation"; there is no need to distinguish cessation of substance from cessation of characteristics. Since the unconditioned does not depend on a cause, the conditioned should also not depend on one; therefore the hetu should not be differentiated. Moreover, it is like sound being impermanent: impermanence is cessation, yet when one speaks of impermanence, it does not merely signify the characteristic of cessation. The *Xianyang* [fascicle] fourteen says: "The nature of impermanence means that the three conditioned characteristics mutually correspond: first, the characteristic of arising; second, the characteristic of cessation; third, the characteristic of abiding and alteration." These three characteristics are collectively called impermanence; arising is further stated to be causal nature, and this cessation is also like that. The *Yaoji* says: A commentary gives the argument: "The cessation of conditioned dharmas should not depend on a cause; because it is called cessation; like analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha)." Some state the argument: "Your cessation should not depend on a cause; because it is conceded to be a cessation; like the cessation of the unconditioned." The *Ji* says: "The examples of these two masters' arguments suffer from the fault of lacking what is to be established (sādhya-vikala). Namely, the three unconditioned dharmas, although lacking the meaning of arising, are both called depending on causes because they depend on causes to be revealed. In the thesis one should say: 'It does not depend on a cause of destruction to cease it.'" This too is not so. The unconditioned's substance is cessation; it does not depend on a cause to be revealed before it is called cessation; because its nature is cessation, it is named cessation. Therefore it says: "It should not depend on a cause," so the example is established and does not lack what is to be established.