十世章
Chapter 10
十世義作二門。一建立者。如過去世中法未謝之時。名過去現在。更望過去名彼過去為過去過去。望今現在此是未有。是故名今為過去未來。此一具三世俱在過去。又彼謝已現在法起。未謝之時名現在現在。望彼過去已滅無。故名彼以為現在過去。望於未來是未有。故名現在未來。此三一具俱在現在。又彼法謝已未來法起。未謝之時名未來現在。望彼現在已謝無。故名未來過去。更望未來亦未有故。名未來未來。此三一具俱在未來。此九中各三。現在是有六過未俱無。問若於過未各立三世。如是過未既各無邊。此三世亦無邊。何但三重而說九耶。答設於過未更欲立者。不異前門故唯有九。又此九世總為一念。而九世歷然。如是總別合論為十世也。第二相攝者有二門。一相即二相入。此二得成由二義故。一緣起相由義。二法性融通義。初緣起相由者。且如過去現在法。未謝之時自是現在。以現在現在望之。乃是現在之過去。是故彼法亦現在亦過去。所望異故不相違。又現在現在法。自是現在以未謝故。以過去現在望之。乃是過去之未來。又以未來現在望之。復是未來之過去。是故彼法亦現在亦過未。又未來現在法。亦現在亦未來。准之可見。又此九中。三世現在必不俱起。六世過未亦不俱。一現在。二過未。此三定得俱。是故九中隨其所應有隱有現。以俱不俱故。且就俱中由過去過去無故。令過去現在法得有也。何以故。若彼不謝此不有故。又由過去現在有故。令過去過去無也。以若不此有彼無謝故。又由過去現在有。令過去未來無也。以由彼未謝令此未有故。又由此過去未來無故。令彼過去現在成有。以若此有彼已謝故是故由此未有。彼得未謝故也。又由過去過去無故。令過去未來無也。謂若彼不無此現不成有。現不成有此未來不成無。是故此無展轉由彼無也。又由過去未來無故。令過去過去無也。反上思之。如過去三世有此六義相。由現在未來各有六可知。二就不俱中有二。初顯現相由亦有六義。謂由過去現在有。方令現在現在成有。何者。以若彼不有無法可謝。至此現有。又由現在現在有故。方知過去現在是有。以若比不有彼有不成故。何者。若無此有。即令彼有不得謝無。不謝之有非緣起有。故不成有也。現在現在望未來現在亦二義。准上思之。過去現在望未來現在亦二義。謂若過去現在不有。即未來現在有不成故。反此亦准知。問俱者可相由。不俱者云何得相由。答俱者現相由。不俱者密相由。亦是展轉相由。以若無此不俱俱不成故。是故此九世總為五位。有此十門。一如過去過去。唯一謝滅但是過去。現在家之過去故。二如過去現在有二門。謂是過去位中自現在故。以現在望之是過去故。是故此法亦現在亦過去。以所望異故不相礙也。三如過去未來有三門。一以過去現在望之。此未有故是過去家未來。二以現在緣現起猶未謝故。是現在現在。三以未來現在望之此已謝故是未來過去。是故此現在現在。亦現在亦過未。四未來現在亦二門。五未來未來唯一門。並准可知。上來次第相由有斯九門。第十超間相由。謂若無初一則無後一等。是故如次及超間無礙相由故。依是道理。令諸門相入相即。如經云。過去一切劫安置未來。今未來一切劫迴置過去世。斯之謂也。凡論相由之義有二門。一約力用。謂若無此彼不成。仍此非彼故。以力用相收故得說入。然體不雜故不相是也。二約體性。謂若無此彼全不成。故此即彼也。是故約體說為相即。釋此二門如別說。是故不失本位不無即入也。思之可見。經云。無量無數劫能作一念頃等。是此義也。
The Tenth (The Ten Times) is explained in two divisions.
**1. Establishment.** For instance, in the past realm, when a phenomenon has not yet ceased, it is called "past-present." Looking further back to what preceded it, that earlier past is called "past-past." Toward the present, this [past-present] does not yet exist; therefore, it is called "past-future." These three all fall within the past.
Again, after that has ceased and the present phenomenon arises, before it ceases it is called "present-present." Looking back to the past, which has already ceased and no longer exists, it is called "present-past." Looking toward the future, which does not yet exist, it is called "present-future." These three all fall within the present.
Again, after that phenomenon has ceased and a future phenomenon arises, before it ceases it is called "future-present." Looking back to the present, which has already ceased, it is called "future-past." Looking further toward the future, which also does not yet exist, it is called "future-future." These three all fall within the future.
Among these nine, each of the three present times actually exists, while the six past and future times do not exist separately. Question: If three times are established for both past and future, then since past and future are each boundless, wouldn’t these three times also be boundless? Why only three layers, making nine? Answer: Even if one tried to establish more within past and future, it would not differ from the previous model, so there are only nine. Moreover, these nine times are together considered one moment, yet the nine times remain distinctly present. Together, the totality and the distinctions are spoken of as the "ten times."
**2. Mutual Inclusion.** This has two aspects: (a) mutual identity and (b) mutual entry. These two are possible because of two principles: (i) the mutual dependence of conditioned arising, and (ii) the unobstructed interpenetration of the nature of phenomena.
*First, mutual dependence of conditioned arising.* For example, the "past-present" phenomenon, before it ceases, is itself present. Viewed from the "present-present," it is the past of the present. Therefore, this phenomenon is both present and past—since the perspectives differ, there is no contradiction.
Similarly, the "present-present" phenomenon is itself present, since it has not ceased. Viewed from the "past-present," it is the future of the past. Viewed from the "future-present," it is the past of the future. Therefore, that phenomenon is also present, past, and future.
The "future-present" phenomenon is likewise both future and present, as can be understood accordingly.
Among these nine, the three "present" times never arise simultaneously, and the six "past/future" times also do not arise together. But one present, two past/future—these three can certainly coexist. Therefore, within the nine, depending on the case, some are hidden and some are manifest, due to coexistence or non-coexistence.
Now, focusing on the coexisting set: Because the "past-past" is absent, the "past-present" can exist. Why? If that did not cease, this could not arise. Also, because the "past-present" exists, the "past-past" is absent. For if this did not exist, there would be nothing to cease. Also, because the "past-present" exists, the "past-future" is absent—for while this has not ceased, that does not yet exist. And because the "past-future" is absent, the "past-present" comes to exist. For if that existed, this would already have ceased. Thus, because this does not yet exist, that obtains its not-yet-ceased state. Also, because the "past-past" is absent, the "past-future" is absent. That is, if that were not absent, this would not be present; if this were not present, that future would not be absent. Therefore, this absence is itself brought about by that absence. And because the "past-future" is absent, the "past-past" is absent—this is understood by reversing the above.
In this way, the past three times have these six aspects of mutual dependence. The same applies to the present and future three times, each with six aspects, as can be understood.
*Second, for the non-coexisting set.* Here, first, the manifest mutual dependence also has six aspects:
Because the "past-present" exists, the "present-present" comes to exist. How so? If that did not exist, there would be nothing to cease, and then this present could not arise. Also, because the "present-present" exists, we know the "past-present" exists. For if this did not exist, that could not be established. Why? If this existence were absent, that existence could not cease. A non-ceasing existence is not an existence born of conditioned arising, so it would not be valid. The "present-present" has two aspects in relation to the "future-present," as above. The "past-present" also has two aspects in relation to the "future-present." That is, if the "past-present" did not exist, the "future-present" could not arise. The reverse is also understood accordingly.
Question: The coexisting ones can depend on each other, but how can the non-coexisting ones? Answer: The coexisting ones depend on each other openly; the non-coexisting ones depend on each other subtly. This too is a kind of sequential mutual dependence, for without this non-coexistence, the coexistence itself could not be established.
Thus, these nine times can be arranged into five positions, with these ten relationships:
1. The "past-past" is only one, purely ceased—it is merely the past of the present era. 2. The "past-present" has two aspects: in the past position it is its own present, but viewed from the present it is past. Thus it is both present and past—differing perspectives cause no obstruction. 3. The "past-future" has three aspects: (a) viewed from the "past-present," it does not yet exist, so it is the future of the past; (b) viewed from the present arising, the phenomenon has not yet ceased, so it is the present-present; (c) viewed from the "future-present," it has already ceased, so it is the past of the future. Therefore, this present-present is also present, past, and future. 4. The "future-present" has two aspects. 5. The "future-future" has only one aspect.
All these follow the same pattern. The above sequential dependence gives those nine relationships. The tenth is the non-sequential dependence: if there were no first, there would be no last. Thus, in order and out of order, the mutual dependence is unobstructed. Based on this principle, all the relations enter and identify with one another.
As the sutra says: "All past kalpas are placed into the future; all future kalpas are placed back into the past." This is exactly what is meant.
Generally, the meaning of mutual dependence has two aspects:
1. **In terms of function:** If this did not exist, that would not arise; yet this is not identical to that. Because functions draw each other in, we can speak of "entry," but since the substances are not mixed, we cannot say they are identical.
2. **In terms of essence:** If this did not exist, that would not arise at all; therefore, this is that. Thus, in terms of essence, we speak of "identity."
The explanation of these two aspects is given separately. Therefore, without losing their own positions, they are not without identity and entry. This can be understood by reflection.
As the sutra says: "Immeasurable, countless kalpas can be contained in a single moment." This is the meaning.
第二約法性融通門者。然此九世時無別體。唯依緣起法上假立。此緣起法復無自性。依真而立。是故緣起理事融通無礙。有其四重。一泯相俱盡。二相與兩存。三相隨互攝。四相是互即。初中以本從末唯事而無理。以末歸本反上可知。經云。非劫入劫。劫入非劫。是此義也。二中全事之理非事。全理之事非理。故俱存而不雜也。經中諸劫相即而不壞本劫者。是此義也。三中由隨事之理故。全一事能容一切也。由隨理之事故。一切事隨理入一中也。反上即是一入一切可知。四中由即理之事。故全一即一切也。由即事之理故。全一切即一也。是故唯理無可即入。唯事不可即入要理事相從相即故。是故有即有入。時劫依此無礙法故。還同此法自在即入餘義思之可解。
Second Principle: The Fusion of Principle and Phenomena. Now, the nine temporal divisions have no independent existence; they are merely conventional designations established on dependent arising. This dependent arising itself lacks intrinsic nature, for it is grounded in the ultimate truth. Therefore, the fusion of principle and phenomena is without obstruction, comprising four levels.
First, the dissolution of both aspects highlights that when following phenomena, only events are seen without principle; when tracing events back to their source, principle alone remains. The sutra states, "Non-aeons enter aeons, aeons enter non-aeons" — that is this meaning.
Second, in the co-existence of both aspects, the principle within events is not itself events, and the events grounded in principle are not themselves principle. Thus both remain without commingling. The sutra's teaching that all aeons interpenetrate without destroying their individual aeonic nature is this meaning.
Third, through mutual inclusion, because principle follows events, one single event can embrace all phenomena. Because events follow principle, all phenomena enter one point through principle. Conversely, one entering all is understood by the same reasoning.
Fourth, in mutual identification, because events are grounded in principle, the one is identical with all; because principle manifest as events, all is identical with one. Therefore, principle alone cannot be entered or identified; events alone likewise cannot. Only when principle and events follow and identify with each other does entering and identification occur. Time-aeons, being grounded in this unobstructed dharma, accordingly dwell in this same freedom, and the remaining meanings of entry and identification can be discerned through contemplation.