成唯識論了義燈 3.18

3.18

The Sautrāntika masters say: 'When the five aggregates emerge from the womb, it is called arising; when they continue in series, it is called duration; when they decline and change, it is called alteration; when life ends, it is called cessation.' However, the Mahāvibhāṣā says that what they describe is merely the characteristic of generic similarity (nikāya-sabhāga) and not conditioned characteristics. This meaning says that these four characteristics are established solely upon the generic similarity of sentient beings and do not pervade all conditioned phenomena. Because the Sautrāntika masters do not accept the establishment of duration in a single-instant dharma; the utmost limit of time is called an instant (kṣaṇa). Because dharmas are momentary, according to the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, fascicle five, the Sautrāntikas also establish the four characteristics within a single instant. That treatise states: 'Furthermore, with respect to all conditioned dharmas of a single instant, apart from grasping them as real entities, the four characteristics are also accomplished. That is, in every single moment, what was originally nonexistent and now exists is called arising; having existed and then becoming nonexistent again is called cessation; subsequent instants arising in succession to the preceding ones is called duration; and because there is a difference between the preceding and the subsequent, it is called duration-alteration.' This meaning is that the arising of an essence that was originally nonexistent and now exists is called arising; the state of nonexistence when what existed has returned to nonexistence is called cessation; the ability to induce subsequent instants to arise in succession to the preceding ones is called duration; and that very characteristic of duration, because it has a difference either with the preceding moment or with the subsequent moment, is called duration-alteration. Because alteration is analyzed with respect to duration, it is called duration-alteration. Although metaphorically established, they are not separate from what is characterized. Fascicle five of the Abhidharmakośa says: 'Here, what need is there for separate entities such as arising?' Also, just as the marks of a Great Man are not different from the Great Man, and just as the characteristics of hardness and so on belonging to the earth element and so on are not different from earth and so on, therefore, although metaphorically established, they are not separate from what is characterized. The Sarvāstivādins say: 'Separate from the dharmas characterized, they have distinct, real entities, and are subsumed under the aggregate of formations not associated with mind.' This concludes the analysis of the Hīnayāna. What is explained in the Mahāyāna is that the four characteristics are metaphorically existent, are neither identical to nor different from the dharmas characterized, and are subsumed under the aggregate of formations not associated with mind. This principle is thoroughly established, so no citations are adduced.