俱舍論記 1.153

1.153

「相似相續說名隨流」者，相似謂與表業及心性相似。或可前後相似。相續，謂前後相續。或相似名隨、相續名流。《正理》破言「非初剎那可名相續，勿有太過之失。是故決定初念無表，不入所說相中。又相續者，是假非實。無表非實，失對法宗。又定所發，亂、無心位不隨流故，應非無表。若言不亂、有心位中此隨流故無斯過者，淨不淨表業應有無表相。」俱舍師救云：言相續者，或以前續後如初無表，或以後續前如後無表，或續前續後如中間無表，故初及後皆名相續。設有無表唯一剎那，相續類故亦名相續，如乳如新。故《入阿毘達磨》云「亦有無表唯一剎那，依總種類故說相續（已上論文）。」此無表體即名相續，前後實體而相續也，誰言是假？又定無表，雖復非遍四位中行。名無表者，四位之言隨應而說，非言無表皆遍四位。如定俱無表，有心位行。不善無表，亂、不亂心位行。若散善無表，通四位行。汝立無心亦為一位，定俱無表豈得行耶？表業為難，亦為非理。期心一發任運相續，彼位中行是無表相。表雖心發，心斷則無，而非任運，故不成例。

Regarding "Continuity of similarity is called 'flowing in succession'": "Similarity" means being similar to the informative karma and the nature of the mind; or it may mean that the preceding and succeeding are similar. "Continuity" means continuing from earlier to later. Or, similarity is called "flowing along with" and continuity is called "succession". The *Nyāyānusāra* refutes this, saying: "The initial moment cannot be called a continuity, lest there be the fault of overextension. Therefore, definitely the non-informative [matter] of the first moment would not enter into the stated characteristic. Furthermore, a continuity is nominal, not real; if non-informative [matter] were not real, that would forfeit the Abhidharma tenet. Furthermore, because that which is generated by meditative absorption does not flow in succession in states of distracted mind or mindless, it should not be non-informative [matter]. If you say there is no such fault because it flows in succession in states of undistracted and with-mind, then wholesome and unwholesome informative karma should also have the characteristic of non-informative [matter]." The Kośa masters defend it, saying: As for what is called continuity, it is either that the earlier continues into the later as in the initial non-informative [matter], or that the later continues from the earlier as in the subsequent non-informative [matter], or that it continues both earlier and later as in the intermediate non-informative [matter]; therefore both the initial and the subsequent are called continuity. Even if there were non-informative [matter] of only a single moment, because it belongs to the category of continuity, it is also called continuity, like milk, or like something new. Therefore the *Abhidharmāvatāra* states: "There is also non-informative [matter] of only a single moment; on the basis of its general category it is called continuity" (thus far the text of the treatise). The substance of this non-informative [matter] is itself called a continuity; real substances of earlier and later continue in succession—who said it is nominal? Furthermore, although meditative absorption non-informative [matter] does not operate across all four states, the fact that it is called non-informative [matter] is stated according to what is appropriate among the four states; it is not said that all non-informative [matter] must pervade all four states. For instance, non-informative [matter] concomitant with meditative absorption operates in states with-mind; unwholesome non-informative [matter] operates in states of distracted and undistracted mind. If it is the non-informative [matter] of distracted wholesome [karma], it operates throughout all four states. You establish mindless as a single state as well; how could non-informative [matter] concomitant with meditative absorption operate there? Raising informative karma as an objection is also unreasonable. Once the initial intention is launched, it continues spontaneously; operating in those states is the characteristic of non-informative [matter]. Although informative karma is launched by the mind, when the mind ceases it is absent and does not operate spontaneously; thus it does not form a parallel.