俱舍論記 5.147

5.147

「所謂住相至有為相中」者，初釋經中不說所謂住相。此師釋經不說住者，三相過患有情易厭，故經別說。住相安住眾生難厭，故經不說。然經說住異，是此異別名。約住辨異，住之異故，名為住異，如生名起、滅名為盡。眼目異名，如是應知。異名住異，恐三相中住異之名濫彼住相，故別釋也。生力遷法令用入現，異、滅遷用令入過去。正令過去但是滅力，而言異相，以助滅故。由斯過重，故經說三。喻說可知。住非遷迫常樂安住，為令生厭，故經不說有為相中。

On "Namely the characteristic of staying... among the conditioned characteristics": first, this explains why the sūtra does not speak of what is called the characteristic of staying. This master explains that the sūtra does not speak of staying because the faults of the other three characteristics easily cause revulsion in sentient beings, and thus the sūtra mentions them separately. The characteristic of staying is stable and enduring, so it is difficult for sentient beings to feel revulsion toward it; hence the sūtra does not speak of it. However, the sūtra's statement of "the alteration of staying" is a different name for this decaying. Distinguishing decaying with respect to staying—because it is the alteration of staying—it is called "the alteration of staying", just as arising is called "origin" and cessation is called "exhaustion". These are different synonyms, and should be known as such. Decaying is called "the alteration of staying" for fear that among the three characteristics, the name "alteration of staying" would be confused with the characteristic of staying, so it is explained separately. The power of arising moves a phenomenon, causing its function to enter the present; decaying and cessation move its function, causing it to enter the past. Actually causing it to enter the past is solely the power of cessation; but the characteristic of decaying is mentioned because it assists cessation. Because of these severe faults, the sūtra speaks of three. The metaphorical explanation can be understood. Staying does not urge or compel, but is always joyfully settled; in order to engender revulsion, it is therefore not mentioned in the sūtra among the conditioned characteristics.