[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 3.10 # 成唯識論了義燈 3.10 成唯識論了義燈 3.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.10) 有解，取前本疏為正，後說雖無異世相依，而有異世相表，又已滅無。如龜毛等，非有為故。《要集》意取後說為正。五十二云：依生已壞滅分位，建立無常。又四十六云：依於有分，建立一種有為之相。依於無分，建立一種有為之相。又此論云：無時名滅。此中所說時分位者，不可無時說有分位，亦非有時說無分位。由此准知，已滅分位，建立過去，更多云云。今謂本疏所說為正。何者？且論立世，世依法立，雖云過、未，過、未無體，還依現法。觀待曾，當立過、未世。滅相在過去，過去既依現法假立，滅相理實，依於現在。故《佛地論》第一說：有為法上，假立分位，或是心上分位影像，此所說時，通於三世，但於現在，假立三故。 > Some explain by taking the former, original commentary as correct: although the latter explanation avoids relying across different time-periods, it involves indicating across different time-periods; furthermore, what has already ceased is non-existent, like the hair of a tortoise, and is not conditioned. The intention of the Yaoji takes the latter explanation as correct: Fascicle 52 says: Based on the state of having arisen and then disintegrated, impermanence is established. Fascicle 46 also says: Based on the existent division, one type of conditioned characteristic is established; based on the non-existent division, one type of conditioned characteristic is established. Furthermore, this treatise says: The time of non-existence is called cessation. As for the temporal states spoken of here, one cannot speak of an existent state at a time of non-existence, nor can one speak of a non-existent state at a time of existence. By this we may infer that based on the state of having already ceased, the past is established; and there is much more discussion. I now say that what the original commentary states is correct. Why? For when the treatises establish time-periods, time-periods are established based on dharmas. Although they speak of the past and future, the past and future lack substance and still rely on present dharmas. Contemplating what has been and what will be, the past and future time-periods are established. The characteristic of cessation is in the past; since the past is nominally established based on present dharmas, the characteristic of cessation, in true principle, relies on the present. Therefore, the first fascicle of the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra states: A state nominally established upon conditioned dharmas, or an image of a state upon the mind; the time spoken of here pervades the three time-periods, but it is only upon the present that the three are nominally established. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.9) - [Next: 3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.11) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.3.10) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.10) · Pramāṇa