俱舍論記 5.165

5.165

「謂愚夫類至亦可了知」者，經部釋經，顯無實體。謂愚夫類，無明所盲而無慧眼，於有為行前後相續，不知無常，謂一謂常，執之為我或執我所，長夜於中而生耽著。世尊為斷彼執見、破彼耽著故，顯行相續體是有為及緣生性，假立三相，故彼契經作如是說。有三有為之有為相，非顯諸行一剎那中具有三相實體。由一剎那起等三相，以慧觀察不可知故，非不可知應立為相。故彼契經復作是說：有為之起亦可了知，盡及住、異亦可了知。既一剎那起等三相不可了知，經中復言了知，明知定約相續假立，非據剎那，以約相續方了知故。引彼經意證剎那無三相，顯相續立；難中但引彼經一文；解中具引彼經二文。

Regarding "Fools ... can also be known": the Sautrāntika explains the scripture, revealing that there is no real entity. It means that fools, blinded by ignorance and lacking the wisdom-eye, regarding the continuum of conditioned formations, do not know impermanence; they consider it one, consider it permanent, cling to it as a self, or cling to it as belonging to a self, giving rise to attachment toward it throughout the long night. In order to sever their clinging views and smash their attachment, the World-Honoured One revealed that the substance of the continuum of formations is conditioned and by nature dependently arisen, provisionally establishing the three characteristics; therefore, that sūtra speaks thus: 'There are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned.' It does not reveal that in a single moment formations possess the real entities of the three characteristics. Because within a single moment the three characteristics such as arising cannot be known when examined with wisdom, that which is not knowable should not be established as a characteristic. Therefore that sūtra further speaks thus: 'The arising of the conditioned can also be known; cessation, as well as duration and alteration, can also be known.' Since within a single moment the three characteristics such as arising cannot be known, and the scripture further says 'can be known,' it is clearly known that they are definitely provisionally established with respect to the continuum, not based on a single moment, because they can only be known with respect to the continuum. Citing the intent of that scripture proves that a single moment lacks the three characteristics and reveals that they are established upon the continuum; the objection only cited one sentence of that scripture, whereas the explanation cites two sentences of that scripture in full.