成唯識論了義燈 3.11

3.11

《雜集》第二云：時者，謂於因果相續流轉，假立為時。又第三云：依止現在，假立去、來，故約當得假立未來，約曾得假立過去。又此論云：表此後無。又云：滅表有法後是無。若不依現法觀曾有義，唯取法無，已立過去世及滅相者。既論云：無時名滅，過去實無。滅相及世，即俱是實，何得名假？又何得云表此後無？應云表前法已無故。復違《雜集》第三，依止現在，假立三世，彼約諸法，因果曾當，通一切故。又《顯揚》第一云：心不相應，不可施設，與心等法，若一若異。滅相既依過去無立，與現在法，時體俱乖，云何不可施設為異？又若唯無，何故五十二云：問如世尊，言有過去行？乃至云此何密意？答：過去諸行，與果故有。未來諸行，攝因故有。不爾，過、未體既是無，如何可說與果攝因？故依現法，與果攝因，假名過、未，又如何言於諸蘊中，隨觀生滅？滅依過去，過去是無，無非蘊法。

The second fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā says: Time refers to the conventional designation of time upon the continuous transmigration of cause and effect. The third fascicle also says: Relying upon the present, the past and future are nominally established; therefore, with respect to what is to be attained, the future is nominally established, and with respect to what has been attained, the past is nominally established. Furthermore, this treatise says: It indicates the subsequent non-existence of this. It also says: Cessation indicates that the existent dharma is subsequently non-existent. If one does not rely on present dharmas to observe the meaning of having previously existed, but solely takes the non-existence of the dharma to have already established the past time-period and the characteristic of cessation: since the treatise says that the time of non-existence is called cessation, and the past is truly non-existent, then both the characteristic of cessation and the time-period would be real existents; how could they be called nominal designations? Furthermore, how could it say that it indicates the subsequent non-existence of this? It should say that it indicates that the preceding dharma is already non-existent. Moreover, this contradicts the third fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā, where relying on the present, the three time-periods are nominally established; that is formulated with respect to the causes and effects of dharmas, past and future, pervading everything. Furthermore, the first fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: Mind-non-associated dharmas cannot be designated as either identical to or different from dharmas such as mind. Since the characteristic of cessation is established based on past non-existence, differing in both time and substance from present dharmas, how could it not be designated as different? Furthermore, if it were solely non-existent, why does fascicle 52 ask: As the World-Honored One said, past formations exist... up to: what is the esoteric intention of this? Answer: Past formations exist because they bestow fruition; future formations exist because they assimilate causes. If it were not so, since the substances of past and future are non-existent, how could one say they bestow fruition and assimilate causes? Therefore, relying on present dharmas, which bestow fruition and assimilate causes, the past and future are nominally designated. Moreover, how could it be said: among the aggregates, one observes arising and cessation as they occur? Cessation relies on the past, the past is non-existent, and non-existence is not an aggregate-dharma.