Defilement, and the Three Times
What separates a defiled dharma from an undefiled one, sorted with unusual precision by moral-quality subtype — and then the treatise's own technical account of what actually makes something past, present, or future, closing with an explanation of why time itself, unlike nirvāṇa, can be put into words at all.
1. Defiled Versus Undefiled Dharmas
云何染污？幾是染污？為何義故觀染污耶？謂不善及有覆無記法，是染污義。有覆無記者，謂遍行意相應煩惱等，及色無色界繫諸煩惱等。諸蘊十界四處一分，是染污。為捨執著煩惱合我故，觀察染污。
What is defiled? How much of everything is defiled? For what purpose is this examined? Whatever is unwholesome, together with the obstructive-but-neutral dharmas, is what "defiled" means. The obstructive-but-neutral are the pervasively-associated afflictions of manas and the rest, and the afflictions bound to the form and formless realms. A portion of the aggregates, ten elements, and four sense fields is defiled. This is examined in order to abandon clinging to a self conceived as fused with affliction.
云何不染污？幾是不染污？為何義故觀不染污耶？謂善及無覆無記法，是不染污義。八界八處全，諸蘊及餘界處一分，是不染污。為捨執著離煩惱我故，觀察不染污。
What is undefiled? How much of everything is undefiled? For what purpose is this examined? Whatever is wholesome, together with the unobstructive-neutral dharmas, is what "undefiled" means. Eight elements and eight sense fields entire, together with the aggregates and a portion of the remaining elements and sense fields, are undefiled. This is examined in order to abandon clinging to a self conceived as free of affliction.
"Obstructive-but-neutral" (有覆無記) is a precise technical middle category worth pausing on: morally neutral in the sense of producing no karmic ripening of its own, yet still genuinely obstructive of the path, because it is itself a form of affliction — specifically, the constant, pervasive self-grasping of manas (already established in Part 8 as inseparable from four afflictions: the view of self, love of self, conceit of self, and ignorance), together with every affliction bound to the form and formless realms, whose more refined character keeps them from generating the same coarse karmic ripening that desire-realm affliction produces, without making them any less obstructive of liberation. This is what separates "defiled" from the simpler unwholesome/wholesome split used elsewhere in the treatise: a dharma can be entirely free of any bad karmic consequence and still count as defiled, purely because it is a species of affliction in its own right.
2. Past, Future, and Present
云何過去？幾是過去？為何義故觀過去耶？謂自相已生已滅故、因果已受用故、染淨功用已謝故、攝因已壞故、果及自相有非有故、憶念分別相故、戀為雜染相故、捨為清淨相故，是過去義。一切一分是過去。為捨執著流轉我故，觀察過去。
What is past? How much of everything is past? For what purpose is this examined? Eight senses make up what "past" means: its own particular characteristic has already arisen and already ceased; its cause and effect have already been exercised; its capacity to defile or purify has already passed; the cause that gathered it has already been destroyed; its effect and its own particular characteristic may or may not still exist; it is a mark reached only through memory and mental construction; longing marks it as an object of defilement; and letting go marks it as an object of purification. A portion of everything is past, in this sense. This is examined in order to abandon clinging to a self conceived as flowing on through time.
云何未來？幾是未來？為何義故觀未來耶？謂有因非已生故、未得自相故、因果未受用故、雜染清淨性未現前故、因及自相有非有故、希為雜染相故、不希為清淨相故，是未來義。一切一分是未來。為捨執著流轉我故，觀察未來。
What is future? How much of everything is future? For what purpose is this examined? Seven senses make up what "future" means: it has a cause but has not yet arisen; it has not yet attained its own particular characteristic; its cause and effect have not yet been exercised; its capacity to defile or purify has not yet become present; its cause and its own particular characteristic may or may not exist; hope marks it as an object of defilement; and its absence of hope marks it as an object of purification. A portion of everything is future, in this sense. This is examined in order to abandon clinging to a self conceived as flowing on through time.
云何現在？幾是現在？為何義故觀現在耶？謂自相已生未滅故、因果受用未受用故、雜染清淨正現前故、能顯過去未來相故、作用現前故，是現在義。一切一分是現在。為捨執著流轉我故，觀察現在。何故過去未來現在說名言事，非涅槃等？內自所證不可說故、唯曾當現是言說所依故。
What is present? How much of everything is present? For what purpose is this examined? Five senses make up what "present" means: its own particular characteristic has already arisen but not yet ceased; its cause has been exercised but its effect not yet, or the reverse; its capacity to defile or purify is genuinely present right now; it is what makes past and future marks possible to display at all; and its own function is presently active. A portion of everything is present, in this sense. This is examined in order to abandon clinging to a self conceived as flowing on through time.
Why are the past, future, and present said to be matters expressible in language, while nirvāṇa and the like are not? Because what is inwardly, personally realized cannot be put into words at all, and it is specifically what has already occurred, will occur, or is occurring right now that language actually has anything to rest on.
T1606 explains the striking "may or may not exist" clause attached to both past and future dharmas: a past dharma's habitual trace, drawn forth from it and now stored in the ālayavijñāna, genuinely still exists — but the actual, concrete event that produced that trace is gone; a future dharma's seed, likewise, already exists in potential, while the actual dharma it will produce has not yet come to be. This is why the treatise can say, in the very same breath, that a past or future thing both "has" and "does not have" existence — one aspect of it (its seed or trace) persists, while another aspect (its own concrete arising) does not, and the treatise is simply refusing to collapse this genuine complexity into a flat yes-or-no answer. The closing question about why time itself can be spoken of, while nirvāṇa cannot, returns to a theme already struck in Part 11's account of ultimate truth: language and concept always depend on some prior distinction to grasp onto, and the three times — precisely because they are what ordinary seeing, hearing, and thinking are built around — give language exactly the kind of foothold that nirvāṇa, realized only through inward, personal experience beyond any such distinction, never can.
Part 16 Complete
Defilement's own scope, and the precise marks distinguishing past, future, and present, are now examined — completing this run of paired categories. Part 17 turns to what the treatise treats at far greater length than anything before it in this analysis: wholesome, unwholesome, and morally neutral dharmas, each broken into thirteen or more distinct senses of its own.
Continue to Part 17 — Wholesome, Unwholesome, and Morally Neutral →