成唯識論了義燈 3.11

3.11

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.