成唯識論了義燈 3.5

3.5

論：又生等相，若體俱有等者。本云：初破古師，相用前後，又住異滅下，破新薩婆多三相用俱。西明科云：並通新舊。有解取前為正。《要集》云：取西明為正。以《婆沙》文義有兩釋：初云作用時異，即三相前後；又云《婆沙》云滅時，老、滅方有作用，故即同時。今謂不爾。前引《婆沙》三十九云：顯一剎那，具有三相。問：若爾應一法亦生、老、滅，作用時異，故不相違？謂法生時，生、有作用；滅時，老、滅方有作用。體雖同時，用有先後。此意即答三相作用，皆有前後，不別云滅與老同時。論云：為止他宗，顯正義故，如譬喻師，一剎那中，有三相者，即應一法一時亦生、亦老、亦滅。然無此理，互相違故。應說諸行初起名生，後盡名滅，中衰名老，為遮彼執，顯一剎那，具有三相。問：若如是者，則應一法一時亦生、老、滅？答：作用時異，故不相違。乃至云：體雖同時，用有先後。一法生滅作用究竟，名一剎那。故無有失。或生、滅位非一剎那。然一剎那，具有三體故。說三相同一剎那。（已上論文。）云滅時老、滅方有作用者，以老衰法滅時方顯，云滅時老、滅方有作用。故下總結，體雖同時，用有先後。又不說住與滅同時，故知古師相用前後。不應分為二說，文無別故。又《俱舍》第五破薩婆多云：又住等三用，俱現在，應一法體一剎那中，即有安住、衰異、壞滅，若時住相能住此法，為名安住，為名衰異，為名滅壞。諸說住等用不同時，彼說便違剎那滅義。他既自說相用前後，約俱時難。古薩婆多即有相符難，新薩婆多相用前後，亦是相符，故依本正。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Furthermore, if the characteristics such as birth exist simultaneously in substance...", the original commentary says: First it refutes the ancient masters, whose characteristics and functions are sequential; then, from "duration, difference, and cessation" downwards, it refutes the new Sarvāstivādins, whose three characteristics and functions are simultaneous. The structural analysis of Ximing says: Both sections apply to both the new and the old. Some explain this by taking the former as correct. The Yaoji says: Taking Ximing's view is correct, because the text and meaning of the Mahāvibhāṣā contain two explanations. The first says that the times of their operation are different, which means the three characteristics are sequential. It also says that the Mahāvibhāṣā states that only at the time of cessation do decay and cessation have operation, and hence they are simultaneous. Now I say this is not so. Earlier it cited the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 39, which says: It shows that a single moment possesses all three characteristics. Question: If so, should not a single dharma simultaneously undergo birth, decay, and cessation? [Answer:] Because the times of their operation are different, they are not contradictory. That is to say, when the dharma is being born, birth has operation; when it ceases, only then do decay and cessation have operation. Although their substances are simultaneous, their operations are sequential. This intention specifically answers that the operations of all three characteristics have sequence; it does not say separately that cessation and decay are simultaneous. The treatise states: In order to stop other schools and reveal the correct meaning—for just as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold that if there are three characteristics within a single moment, then a single dharma would at one time be born, decay, and cease. But there is no such principle, because they contradict one another. One should say that the initial arising of conditioned formations is called birth, their final exhaustion is called cessation, and their intermediate declining is called decay. In order to ward off that attachment, it reveals that a single moment possesses all three characteristics. Question: If it is like this, then should not a single dharma simultaneously be born, decay, and cease? Answer: Because the times of their operations are different, there is no contradiction. And up to: Although their substances are simultaneous, their operations have sequence. When the operations of birth and cessation of a single dharma are completed, that is called a single moment. Therefore, there is no error. Alternatively, the states of birth and cessation are not a single moment; however, a single moment possesses all three substances. Therefore, it is said that the three characteristics are in the same single moment. (Above is the text of the treatise.) When it says that only at the time of cessation do decay and cessation have operation, it is because decaying dharmas are only revealed at the time of cessation; hence it says that only at the time of cessation do decay and cessation have operation. Therefore, the concluding summary below states: Although their substances are simultaneous, their operations have sequence. Furthermore, it does not state that duration and cessation are simultaneous; therefore, we know that the ancient masters held that characteristics and functions are sequential. One should not divide it into two explanations, because there is no difference in the text. Furthermore, the fifth fascicle of the Kośa, in refuting the Sarvāstivādins, says: Furthermore, if the operations of the three such as duration are all present at once, then a single dharma-substance within a single moment would have abiding, decaying difference, and destructing cessation. At the time when the characteristic of duration can make this dharma abide, is it called abiding, is it called decaying difference, or is it called destructing cessation? Those who say that the operations of duration and the others are not simultaneous—their statement contradicts the doctrine of momentary cessation. Since the others themselves speak of the characteristics and operations having sequence, the objection is framed in terms of simultaneity. For the ancient Sarvāstivādins, there is an objection of proving what is already accepted (siddhasādhana); for the new Sarvāstivādins, if characteristics and operations have sequence, it is likewise proving what is already accepted. Therefore, relying on the original commentary is correct.