大乘義章 1.51

1.51

言就世者，論其性體，古今常湛，猶若虛空，非三世攝。故經說言「佛性非是三世攝」也。隨緣辨性，有是三世、有非三世。相狀如何？今先就佛辨其性相。如來佛性，據因以望，得說未來；對因辨果，得為現在；捨對論之，非三世攝。良以如來體窮真性、悟法本如，非先有染後息為淨，德同法性故非三世。又復所得常不生滅，故非三世。故《涅槃經．迦葉品》云「如來佛性，非是過去現在未來。」後身佛性，據前以望，名為未來。就佛返望，名為過去。形前對後，說為現在。隨所得處，分離生滅，契合如理，亦得說為非三世攝。若非三世，何故經言「後身佛性現在未來？少分見故名為現在，具見在當名為未來。」此亦不違非三世言，蓋乃對果說之為現，對因名果說為未來，捨對論之則非三世。九地菩薩下至初地，論其行實與十地同。然經中說「九地以還，聞見佛性，未眼見故，一向是其三世所攝。種性解行，所有佛性，窮實如言，分顯之處平等離相，亦非三世。」但今為判地前皆凡，佛性一向三世所攝。下至闡提，佛性同爾，隨相流轉，名三世攝，體非生滅（此三門竟）。

Regarding 'with respect to the [three] periods of time': discussing its essential nature, it is eternally clear throughout past and present, just like empty space, not subsumed under the three periods of time. Hence the sūtra says: 'Buddha-nature is not subsumed under the three periods of time.' Discerning nature according to conditions, some are of the three periods of time and some are not. What are their characteristics? Now, we first discern its marks of nature with respect to the Buddha. Regarding the Buddha-nature of the Tathāgata: viewed from the perspective of the cause, it may be said to be future; discerned as fruition in contrast to the cause, it can be present; discussing it apart from contrast, it is not subsumed under the three periods of time. This is truly because the Tathāgata exhaustively fathoms the true nature and realizes that dharmas are fundamentally thus (tathā); it is not that there was first defilement which later ceased to become purity. Because its virtues are identical with dharmatā, it is not of the three periods of time. Furthermore, what is attained is eternally free from arising and ceasing; hence it is not of the three periods of time. Therefore, the 'Kāśyapa Chapter' of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The Buddha-nature of the Tathāgata is neither past, present, nor future.' The Buddha-nature of the final existence (carama-bhavika): viewed from what came before, it is called future; viewed back from the perspective of the Buddha, it is called past; compared to what precedes and contrasted with what follows, it is spoken of as present. In accordance with the stage attained, it is partially separated from arising and ceasing, and tallies with the principle of thusness; it may also be spoken of as not subsumed under the three periods of time. If it is not of the three periods of time, why does the sūtra say: 'The Buddha-nature of the final existence is present and future? Because it is seen in a minor portion, it is called present; because complete seeing lies in the future, it is called future'? This also does not contradict the statement that it is not of the three periods of time; it is merely spoken of as present in contrast to fruition, and called future as fruition in contrast to the cause; discussing it apart from contrast, it is not of the three periods of time. For bodhisattvas of the nine bhūmis down to the first bhūmi, discussing the reality of their practice, it is identical with the tenth bhūmi. However, it is said in the sūtra: 'From the ninth bhūmi downwards, because they hear and see Buddha-nature but have not yet seen it with their own eyes, it is entirely subsumed under the three periods of time. For the Buddha-nature possessed in the stages of lineage and resolute practice, if one exhaustively speaks of reality according to the teaching, the stage of partial manifestation is equal and free from marks, and is also not of the three periods of time.' But now, in order to determine that those prior to the bhūmis are all ordinary beings, their Buddha-nature is entirely subsumed under the three periods of time. Down to icchantikas, Buddha-nature is likewise: transmigrating according to marks, it is called subsumed under the three periods of time, while its essence is free from arising and ceasing. (This concludes the third section.)