大乘義章 2.43

2.43

次約時論。時謂三世，約此三時以辨數滅。依如《毘曇》，煩惱業思有其二種：一是正體、二成就。得治有二種：一無礙道、二解脫道。無礙能斷，解脫得滅亦名證滅。先論其斷，義則不定。若斷前因令不生後，名之為斷。唯斷過去，道邊無惑，故不斷現。當惑未起，未能生後，故不斷當。若遮惑果令其不起名之為斷，唯斷未來；現有惑得，故不斷現；過去已起，故不斷過。若攝因果名之為斷，通斷過未，正遮後果令其不生，名斷未來，後不生故；過去煩惱因義不生成，名斷過去；於現在道邊，無惑生後亦不起前，故不斷現。若斷現得，令不生後，名之為斷，則斷現在及遮未來。唯斷得能，不斷得體。若斷現得，令其所得過未煩惱不來屬己，名之為斷，通斷三世。斷義如是。若論得滅在於解脫，義亦不定，約對以論。唯滅過未煩惱因果，不滅現在，現無惑得可以息滅，故不滅現。若望滅體，唯得現滅不得過未。是義云何？過因後果，正滅在今，隨而得之，故得現滅。現所滅惑，過去未滅，故不得過；非當始滅，故不得當。若遮無惑果令其不起名之為滅，唯滅現未，不滅過去。是義云何？解脫現時，煩惱不生，名滅現在。其所滅惑，後不續生，名滅未來。過去煩惱起之已竟，非道所裁，故不滅過。與《涅槃》中斷善相似，故彼文言「滅有二種，一現在滅、二障未來，具此二滅名斷善根。」斷惑亦爾，若令諸惑因義不成，名之為滅，通滅三世。是義云何？對治現前，令過去惑不能生後，名滅過因。現不起故，後惑不起，無惑生後，名滅現因。後惑不起，無惑生後，名滅來因。與《涅槃》中斷三世因名斷善根，其義相似，以通滅故。《毘婆沙》云「數滅是多，通滅三世；非數滅少，唯滅未來。」問曰：《毘曇》解脫無惑名得滅者，無礙道時亦無煩惱，以何義故不名得滅？釋言：有以。無礙道時，於其自品所未斷惑是未起無，故不得滅；惑雖不行，其得在故。於其自品所斷煩惱是不行無，非得斷無，故不得滅。若不退人，無礙道時，令所斷惑永更不生，是非數滅。非滅諦收，故不得滅。問曰：無礙令所斷惑永更不生彼惑家得，何故不滅？無礙力微，不能滅故。問曰：無礙令所斷惑後更不生非數滅者，後更不生便無所得，以何義故能得不滅？釋言：未來所得雖滅，過因仍在，生後細惑，得隨彼因，故在不滅。煩惱斷滅其義既然，業思同爾。《毘曇》如是。成實法中，但斷煩惱業苦之體，不說斷得。設言得者，彼名行人成就彼法，名為得矣。斷滅煩惱，與《毘曇》同，斷業亦爾。生死苦報，或滅現在，令後不續，謂邊際智強抑令滅。或滅未來，由斷現因，令後不生。大乘法中，麁起結業，斷滅同前。若論同體自性無明，唯斷現在，令後不續，更無餘義。相狀如何？以同體智順真力故，能令即體自性無明更不生後，名之為斷。此性無明，滅在解脫，得之方法與上義同（此四門竟）。

Next is the discussion with respect to time. 'Time' refers to the three times; it is with respect to these three times that cessation through deliberation is distinguished. According to the Abhidharma, the volition of affliction and karma has two kinds: first, its primary essence; second, its acquisition. There are two kinds of antidotes: first, the unobstructed path; second, the path of liberation. The unobstructed [path] can sever; the [path of] liberation attains cessation, which is also called realizing cessation. Discussing severance first, its meaning is not fixed: If severing a previous cause so that it does not produce a subsequent [effect] is called severance, one severs only the past; alongside the path there is no affliction, and therefore one does not sever the present; future afflictions have not yet arisen and cannot yet produce what follows, and therefore one does not sever the future. If obstructing the fruit of affliction so that it does not arise is called severance, one severs only the future; in the present there is the acquisition of affliction, and therefore one does not sever the present; the past has already arisen, and therefore one does not sever the past. If subsuming both cause and fruit is called severance, it applies to severing both past and future: precisely obstructing the subsequent fruit so that it does not arise is called severing the future, because what follows does not arise; because the past affliction's causal function does not come to fruition, this is called severing the past; alongside the present path, there is no affliction producing what follows, nor does it give rise to what precedes, and therefore one does not sever the present. If severing present acquisition so that it does not produce what follows is called severance, then one severs the present and obstructs the future; one severs only the capacity of acquisition, not the essence of acquisition. If severing present acquisition so that the past and future afflictions acquired by it no longer belong to oneself is called severance, this applies across severing the three times. The meaning of severance is like this. If discussing the attainment of cessation residing in liberation, its meaning is also not fixed. Discussed with respect to the objects of opposition, one only extinguishes the causes and fruits of past and future afflictions, and does not extinguish the present; in the present there is no acquisition of affliction that could be brought to rest, and therefore one does not extinguish the present. If viewed from the perspective of the essence of cessation, one only attains present cessation and does not attain past or future. What does this mean? Past causes and subsequent fruits precisely cease right now, and one attains this accordingly; therefore, one attains present cessation. The afflictions extinguished in the present were not extinguished in the past, and therefore one does not attain the past; they are not just beginning to be extinguished in the future, and therefore one does not attain the future. If obstructing the fruit of absence of affliction so that [affliction] does not arise is called cessation, one extinguishes only the present and future, and does not extinguish the past. What does this mean? When liberation is present, afflictions do not arise, which is called extinguishing the present. Those extinguished afflictions do not arise in succession thereafter, which is called extinguishing the future. Past afflictions have already finished arising and are not what the path severs, and therefore one does not extinguish the past. This is similar to the severance of wholesome roots in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra; hence that text says: 'There are two kinds of cessation: first, present cessation; second, obstruction of the future; possessing these two cessations is called severing wholesome roots.' Severing afflictions is also like this. If rendering the causal function of the afflictions unestablished is called cessation, it applies to extinguishing all three times. What does this mean? When the antidote manifests, rendering past afflictions unable to produce what follows is called extinguishing past causes. Because none arise in the present, subsequent afflictions do not arise, and without afflictions producing what follows, this is called extinguishing present causes. Because subsequent afflictions do not arise, there are no afflictions producing what follows, which is called extinguishing future causes. This is similar in meaning to severing the causes of the three times being called severing wholesome roots in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, because it applies comprehensively to extinguishing them. The Vibhāṣā says: 'Cessation through deliberation is broad, applying to extinguishing all three times; cessation without deliberation is narrow, extinguishing only the future.' Question: In the Abhidharma, the absence of affliction at liberation is called attaining cessation; during the unobstructed path there is also no affliction, so for what reason is it not called attaining cessation? Answer: There is a reason. During the unobstructed path, with respect to the afflictions not yet severed in one's own category, their absence is an unarisen absence, and therefore one does not attain cessation; although the afflictions are not active, their acquisition remains. With respect to the afflictions severed in one's own category, their absence is an inactive absence, not an absence of the severance of acquisition, and therefore one does not attain cessation. For a person of non-retrogression, during the unobstructed path, causing the severed afflictions never to arise again is cessation without deliberation. Since it is not subsumed under the truth of cessation, one does not attain cessation. Question: When the unobstructed [path] causes the severed afflictions never to arise again, why is the acquisition belonging to those afflictions not extinguished? Because the power of the unobstructed [path] is slight and cannot extinguish it. Question: If the unobstructed [path] causing the severed afflictions never to arise again is cessation without deliberation, and when they do not arise again in the future there is no longer anything acquired, for what reason is the acquisition not extinguished? Answer: Although future acquisitions are extinguished, past causes still remain, producing subsequent subtle afflictions; acquisition follows those causes, and therefore remains unextinguished. The meaning of the severance and extinguishing of afflictions is thus; the volition of karma is likewise. Such is the Abhidharma. In the system of the Tattvasiddhi, one only severs the essence of affliction, karma, and suffering, and does not speak of severing acquisition. If acquisition is mentioned, they define it as the practitioner being endowed with that dharma, calling it 'acquisition.' Severing and extinguishing afflictions is the same as in the Abhidharma, and severing karma is also like this. The suffering retribution of saṃsāra is either extinguished in the present so that it does not continue thereafter—namely, when forcibly suppressed and extinguished by the border-limit cognition—or extinguished in the future by severing the present causes so that it does not arise thereafter. In the Mahāyāna system, the severance and extinguishing of coarsely arisen fetters and karma is the same as above. If discussing the identical-essence innate ignorance, one only severs the present so that it does not continue thereafter, with no other meaning. What is its characteristic? Because the identical-essence cognition accords with the power of the real, it can cause the identical-essence innate ignorance no longer to produce what follows, which is called severance. The cessation of this innate ignorance resides in liberation; the method of attaining it is identical with the meaning above. (These four sections are concluded.)