大乘義章 2.66

2.66

第九門中約對四無共相收攝。言四無者，如《涅槃》說，一已有無、二未有無、三者互無、四畢竟無。起已謝往，現今無法，名已有無。當法未起，名未有無。牛中無馬、馬中無牛，如是一切，名為互無。如龜無毛、兔無角等，如是一切，名畢竟無。四無如是。攝相云何？於中略以兩門分別：一就四辨三、二就三辨四。就初門中。先就已有辨三無為。宗別不同。依如毘曇。已有之無。非三無為。何故如是。過去之法。當時滅壞。是四相中無常之滅。故非無為。謝往已竟往成在過。是過去有。復非無為。彼過去法。現無集用。是其有為虛空所攝。故非無為。問曰。毘曇說有現得得過去世煩惱染業。斷現得故。令過去世煩惱與業不屬行人。此之數滅。是已有無。云何說言已有之無無為不攝？釋言：彼宗雖復宣說斷現得故，令過去世煩惱染業不屬行人。而過去世煩惱與業有體常在，故非無為。問曰：《毘曇》說斷現得，如是現得被斷滅已名為數滅。此之數滅，是已有無。今云何言已有之無非三無為？釋言：彼說斷現得者，但令現得不能生後，不斷得體，故彼得體雖被斷已謝滅過去，而非數滅。成實法中，過去之法當時滅壞，是無常滅，與《毘曇》同。謝滅已竟，今望全無，此之無處是虛空攝，彼宗宣說過去未來二世無故。問曰：已無，何故不名非數滅攝？釋云：非數但滅未來未起法故。此云何知？《毘曇》非數但滅未起，《成實》不非，明知共用。問曰：何故已有之無不名數滅？一切聖道但遮未來，已起之法不可斷故。問曰：現解斷過去因、遮未來果名為斷滅，今云何言但遮未來、不斷過去？此如上釋。過因已滅，現無可斷，但遮未來令不起時，使彼過因牽義不成名斷過因，理實現無過因可斷。大乘法中與《成實》同。問曰：大乘斷同體惑，同體之惑與智俱現，被斷謝往即是數滅。如是數滅，是已有無。何說言與《成實》同已有之無皆非數滅。釋言：大乘斷同體者，但斷此惑生後之義，不斷惑體，故此自體無明盡處亦非數滅。問曰：何故不斷惑體？惑體無常，自然滅壞，不假斷故（此已有竟）。

In the ninth section, there is the mutual subsumption with reference to the four non-existences. Regarding the four non-existences, as taught in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*, they are: first, non-existence after having existed; second, non-existence before having existed; third, mutual non-existence; and fourth, absolute non-existence. Having arisen and then passed away, so that it is now non-existent, is called non-existence after having existed. A future phenomenon not yet having arisen is called non-existence before having existed. In an ox there is no horse, and in a horse there is no ox, and so on for all such cases: this is called mutual non-existence. Like a tortoise lacking hair or a hare lacking horns, and so on for all such cases: this is called absolute non-existence. Such are the four non-existences. How are they subsumed? Within this, they are briefly analyzed under two headings: first, analyzing the three [unconditioned] in terms of the four [non-existences]; second, analyzing the four in terms of the three. Under the first heading, we first analyze the three unconditioned in terms of non-existence after having existed. The doctrines differ. According to the Abhidharma, non-existence after having existed is not the three unconditioned. Why is this so? A past phenomenon is extinguished and destroyed at that time, which is the cessation of impermanence among the four characteristics [of conditioned dharmas], and therefore it is not unconditioned. Having already passed away, it has receded into the past, which is past existence, and again is not unconditioned. That past phenomenon now has no active accumulation, which is subsumed under conditioned space, and therefore it is not unconditioned. Question: The Abhidharma teaches that there is a present acquisition (*prāpti*) that acquires past afflictions and defiled karma; because the present acquisition is severed, it causes the afflictions and karma of the past period not to belong to the practitioner. This analytical cessation is non-existence after having existed. Why do you say that non-existence after having existed is not subsumed under the unconditioned? Explanation: Although that school proclaims that severing present acquisition causes past afflictions and defiled karma not to belong to the practitioner, the afflictions and karma of the past period possess an entity and are constantly present, and therefore they are not unconditioned. Question: The Abhidharma says that present acquisition is severed; when such a present acquisition has been severed and extinguished, it is called analytical cessation. This analytical cessation is non-existence after having existed. Why do you now say that non-existence after having existed is not the three unconditioned? Explanation: When they say that present acquisition is severed, it merely renders the present acquisition unable to generate subsequent [moments], without severing the entity of the acquisition; thus, although that entity of acquisition has been severed and has receded into the past, it is not analytical cessation. In the system of the *Tattvasiddhi*, a past phenomenon is extinguished and destroyed at that time, which is impermanent cessation, identical to the Abhidharma. Having already passed away, when viewed from the present it is completely non-existent, and this locus of non-existence is subsumed under space, because that school teaches that the two periods of past and future do not exist. Question: Why is non-existence after having existed not called non-analytical cessation? Explanation: Because non-analytical cessation only extinguishes future phenomena that have not yet arisen. How is this known? In the Abhidharma, non-analytical cessation only extinguishes what has not arisen, and the *Tattvasiddhi* does not negate this, so it is clearly known to be held in common. Question: Why is non-existence after having existed not called analytical cessation? All noble paths only obstruct the future, because phenomena that have already arisen cannot be severed. Question: Present understanding severs past causes and obstructs future results, which is called cessation through severing; how can you now say that it merely obstructs the future and does not sever the past? This is as explained above. Past causes have already ceased and in the present there is nothing to sever; it merely obstructs the future to prevent it from arising, making the pulling function of those past causes unsuccessful, which is termed severing past causes; in principle and reality, there is presently no past cause that can be severed. In the Mahāyāna doctrine, it is the same as the *Tattvasiddhi*. Question: In the Mahāyāna, one severs delusion of the same substance; delusion of the same substance is co-present with wisdom, and being severed and passing away, it is precisely analytical cessation. Such analytical cessation is non-existence after having existed. Why do you say that, identical to the *Tattvasiddhi*, non-existence after having existed is in all cases not analytical cessation? Explanation: When the Mahāyāna severs what is of the same substance, it merely severs the function of this delusion to generate subsequent [moments], without severing the entity of delusion; thus, the point where the intrinsic entity of this ignorance is exhausted is also not analytical cessation. Question: Why does it not sever the entity of delusion? The entity of delusion is impermanent and naturally extinguished and destroyed, without relying on severing. (This concludes [the section on] non-existence after having existed).