俱舍論記 6.30

6.30

「且由時者至及墮一世」者，此下別釋時。時中有四，一生、一滅、一住、墮一世。此顯與心同一時，方名隨轉。問：四相之內，何故不說異相？解云：生在未來，令法入現。住在現在，令法安住。滅謂滅入過去。各有勝能，是故別說。異相助滅令法過去，無別勝能，是故不說。又解：此文言住，即異之別名。約住明異，故《婆沙》一百五十五云「此中起者謂生，住者謂老，滅者謂無常。」又《正理論》「難云：豈不但言一生、住、滅，即知亦是墮一世中（解云：一生、住、滅已顯墮未來等，更言墮一世，豈不重耶）。」《正理》「解云：雖亦即知墮於一世，而猶未了此法與心，過去、未來亦不相離。或為顯示諸不生法故，復說言及墮一世（解云：但言一生等，雖亦即知生墮未來世，住、滅墮現在世，而猶未了此法與心落謝過去及未至生相餘未來世亦不相離故，說墮一世顯不相離也。或有生疑：過未已生、未來當生，可不相離名心隨轉。未來不生，應可相離，非心隨轉。又為顯示諸不生法亦不相離故，一生、住、滅外更說墮一世）。」又《正理論》「難云：若爾，但應言墮一世（解云：世寬、相狹，可相外別立世。既世攝相，何須離世別說生等）。」《正理》「解云：不爾。應不令知定墮一世（解云：世即不定，生等即定。如過去法有多剎那，今時雖復同墮一世，於中隨何等法昔在現、未有別世時？未來諸法有多剎那未至現在，雖同一世，隨何等法。若流至現在，與未來法即不同世。是即非定，還非隨轉。為欲令知定墮一世，是故離墮一世，復言一生、住、滅。生定墮未來世，住、滅定墮現在世。若無生等，應不令知定墮一世）。」

Regarding '[First, as for "by time", it refers to having the same rising, cessation, remaining,] and falling into the same time period': below, this individually explains 'time'. Within time, there are four: one rising, one cessation, one remaining, and falling into one time period. This indicates that only when it is at the same time as the mind is it called 'following the turns [of the mind]'. Question: Among the four characteristics, why is the characteristic of difference (alteration) not mentioned? Explanation: Rising is in the future, causing the dharma to enter the present. Remaining is in the present, causing the dharma to abide. Cessation means ceasing and entering the past. Each having a prominent capacity, they are therefore spoken of individually. The characteristic of difference assists cessation in causing the dharma to pass into the past; having no distinct prominent capacity, it is therefore not mentioned. Another explanation: The word 'remaining' in this text is just another name for 'difference'. It explains difference in terms of remaining; thus Mahāvibhāṣā fascicle 155 states: 'Herein, arising means rising, remaining means aging, and cessation means impermanence.' Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra raises an objection: 'Could one not simply state "one rising, remaining, and cessation", and thereby know that it also falls into the same time period? (Explanation: Since one rising, remaining, and cessation already show falling into the future and so forth, is it not redundant to further say "falling into one time period"?)' The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'Although one would indeed know that it falls into one time period, it would still not be understood that these dharmas and the mind are also not separated in the past and future. Or, in order to show non-arising dharmas, it additionally states "and falling into one time period". (Explanation: By merely saying "one rising" and so forth, although one would indeed know that rising falls into the future time period and remaining and cessation fall into the present time period, it would still not be understood that these dharmas and the mind are not separated after lapsing into the past or in the rest of the future time period before reaching the phase of rising; therefore, stating "falling into one time period" reveals their non-separation. Or, someone might doubt: "Having already arisen in the past or being about to arise in the future, they may not be separated and are called 'following the turns of the mind'; but in the future when they do not arise, they might be separated and not follow the turns of the mind." Furthermore, in order to show that non-arising dharmas are also not separated, apart from one rising, remaining, and cessation, it further states "falling into one time period".)' Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra raises an objection: 'If so, one should only say "falling into one time period". (Explanation: The time period is broad and the characteristics are narrow; one may establish the time period distinct from the characteristics. Since the time period subsumes the characteristics, why is it necessary to speak of rising and so forth apart from the time period?)' The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'It is not so. [If one did so,] one would not make known that it definitely falls into the same time period. (Explanation: Time periods are not fixed, while rising and so forth are fixed. For instance, past dharmas have many moments; although at the present time they all fall into the same time period, whichever dharma among them, when it was previously in the present or future, belonged to a different time period? Future dharmas have many moments that have not reached the present; although they are in the same time period, whichever dharma among them, if it flows into the present, it is no longer in the same time period as the future dharmas. Thus it is not fixed, and in turn would not be "following the turns". In order to make known that it definitely falls into the same time period, therefore, apart from "falling into one time period", it further states "one rising, remaining, and cessation". Rising definitely falls into the future time period, and remaining and cessation definitely fall into the present time period. If there were no rising and so forth, one would not make known that it definitely falls into the same time period.)'