廣弘明集 18.102

18.102

曾問諸法師明三世或有或無。莫適所定。此亦是大法中一段處所而有無不泮。情每慨之。是以忽疏野懷聊試孟浪言之。誠知孟浪之言不足以會理。然胸襟之中欲有少許意。子不能默已。輒疏條相呈。匠者可為折衷。余以為三世一統循環為用。過去雖滅其理常在。所以在者。非如阿毘曇注言。五陰塊然喻若足之履地。真足雖往厥迹猶存。當來如火之在木。木中欲言有火耶。視之不可見。欲言無耶。緣合火出。經又云。聖人見三世。若其無也。聖無所見。若言有耶。則犯常嫌明過去未來雖無。眼對理恒相因。苟因理不絕聖見三世無所疑矣。

I once asked various Dharma masters regarding the clarification of the three periods of time as either existent or nonexistent; none had a fixed view. This too is an area within the Great Dharma, yet whether they exist or not has not been resolved; my heart often laments this. Therefore, suddenly revealing my rustic thoughts, I tentatively and brashly speak of it. I truly know that rash words are inadequate to accord with principle, yet having a little thought in my breast, I could not remain silent; thereupon I outline them to present to you. The master may adjudicate. I consider the three periods of time to be of one unified governance, functioning cyclically. Although the past has ceased, its principle constantly exists. Why it exists is not as the Abhidharma notes say: the five aggregates are solid like feet treading on the ground; though the real foot has passed, its footprint remains. The future is like fire in wood: if you say there is fire in wood, looking for it you cannot see it; if you say it is nonexistent, when conditions combine the fire emerges. The sūtra also says: The Sage sees the three periods of time. If they were nonexistent, the Sage would have nothing to see. If you say they are existent, one incurs the error of eternalism. It is clear that although the past and future are without sensory confrontation before the eyes, their principle constantly depends [on conditions]. If principle is continuous, there is no doubt that the Sage sees the three periods of time.