俱舍論記 5.177

5.177

「此不說住至無不遍失」者，經部答。此通異相難。經文說異名住異者，意但說異為有為相，此不說住為有為相，故經言有三有為之有為相。問：其義云何？答：謂住之異故名住異，故若有住之處亦必定有異。後念聲等雖無後念嗣現剎那，而能嗣前過去剎那，亦名為住。雖無後念可異，與前念異，故亦有異。此正釋異。而言住者，約住明異。由此立相，無不遍失。又解：此通住、異二相難，顯二相中意立異相為有為相。此不說住為有為相，為欲約住辨異故。前解住也，不得我意，浪難住相。此即且撥住相難却。問：其義云何？答：謂住之異故名住異，故若有住之處亦必有異。最後聲等雖無後念可嗣可異，而有前念可嗣可異，得有住異。此正明異是有為相。而言住者，約住明異，由此立相無不遍失。若准文勢，前解為勝。若准答文，後解亦通。應知住、異若最後念，雖無念可嗣可異，而能嗣前、異前。若最初念，雖無前念可嗣可異，而有後嗣、後異。若中間剎那，具有前後嗣、異。設一剎那嗣、異流類，亦名住異。問答之中雖論最後，此乃略舉一隅。

Regarding "This does not speak of stationariness ... there is no flaw of non-pervasiveness": This is the Sautrāntika's answer. This resolves the objection against the characteristic of alteration. When the scripture refers to alteration as "alteration of stationariness" (sthity-anyathātva), the intent is merely to state that alteration is a conditioned characteristic; it does not speak of stationariness as a conditioned characteristic. Therefore, the scripture states that there are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned. Question: What is its meaning? Answer: Because it is the alteration of stationariness, it is called "alteration of stationariness"; therefore, wherever there is stationariness, there must also be alteration. Although the final moment of sound or the like has no subsequent moment to succeed the present moment, it can succeed the preceding past moment, and thus it is also termed "stationariness." Although it has no subsequent moment from which to differ, it differs from the preceding moment, and therefore alteration also exists. This properly explains alteration. As for speaking of "stationariness," it is in reference to stationariness that alteration is elucidated. Because the characteristic is established in this way, there is no flaw of non-pervasiveness. Another interpretation states: This resolves the objections against both characteristics, stationariness and alteration, showing that between the two characteristics, the intent is to establish the characteristic of alteration as the conditioned characteristic. It does not speak of stationariness as a conditioned characteristic; it does so in order to distinguish alteration in reference to stationariness. The previous explanation of stationariness failed to grasp my intention and raised an idle objection against the characteristic of stationariness. This momentarily brushes aside and dismisses the objection against stationariness. Question: What is its meaning? Answer: Because it is the alteration of stationariness, it is called "alteration of stationariness"; therefore, wherever there is stationariness, there must also be alteration. Although the final moment of sound or the like has no subsequent moment to succeed or differ from, there is a preceding moment to succeed and differ from, so that stationariness and alteration can exist. This properly clarifies that alteration is a conditioned characteristic. As for speaking of "stationariness," it is in reference to stationariness that alteration is elucidated; because the characteristic is established in this way, there is no flaw of non-pervasiveness. If evaluated by the trend of the text, the former interpretation is superior. If evaluated by the reply text, the latter interpretation is also tenable. One should know that with regard to stationariness and alteration, if it is the final moment, although it has no moment to succeed or differ from, it can succeed the prior and differ from the prior. If it is the initial moment, although it has no prior moment to succeed or differ from, it has subsequent succession and subsequent alteration. If it is an intermediate moment, it fully possesses both prior and subsequent succession and alteration. Even if it is a single moment succeeding and differing from its homogenous category, it is still called "alteration of stationariness." Although the question and answer discuss the final moment, this merely cites one corner [of the issue].