成唯識論了義燈 3.10

3.10

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.