俱舍論疏 1.190

1.190

論「相似相續說名隨流」，此第二釋無表相也。述曰：無表體性相似相續，唯善、不善。有人云：相似者，謂與表業及心、性相似隨流。非也。《正理》彈云「今謂經主於此頌中不能具說無表色相，以說隨流名無表故。」彼自釋言「相似相續說名隨流，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，如初念無表。或以後續前，如後念無表。或續前、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。故《入阿毘達磨》云「亦有無表唯一剎那，依總種類故說相續，此無表體即名相續。實體相續，如何是假？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，心斷即無，而非任運，故不成例。」

The Śāstra says: "Resemblance and continuation is called flow." This is the second section, which explains the characteristic mark of the unmanifest. The commentary says: The nature of the unmanifest resembles itself and continues, being only wholesome or unwholesome. Some say: 'Resemblance' means that it flows resembling the manifest action, mind, and nature. This is incorrect. The *Nyāyānusāra* refutes this, saying: "We hold that in this verse the Master of the Śāstra is incapable of completely stating the characteristic mark of unmanifest form, because he says that 'flowing' is called 'unmanifest.'" It then explains itself: "Resemblance and continuation is called flow; the very first moment cannot be called continuation, lest there be the fault of being too broad. Therefore, the unmanifest of the first moment definitely does not enter into the stated characteristic. Furthermore, continuation is conventional, not real. If the unmanifest were not real, this would abandon the Abhidharma doctrine. Furthermore, because that produced by absorption does not flow in the confused or mindless states, it should not be unmanifest. If you say that because it flows in the unconfused and mindful states there is no such fault, then pure and impure manifest actions should also possess the characteristic of the unmanifest." The masters of the *Kośa* defend [Vasubandhu], saying: Speaking of continuation, it is either that the prior continues into the posterior, as with the unmanifest of the first moment; or the posterior continues from the prior, as with the unmanifest of subsequent moments; or it continues both prior and posterior, as with the intermediate unmanifest. Therefore, both the first and subsequent [moments] are called continuation. Even if there were an unmanifest of only a single moment, because it belongs to a continuing genus, it is also called continuation. Thus the *Abhidharmāvatāra* says: "There is also an unmanifest of only a single moment, yet by relying on the general genus it is spoken of as continuation; the substance of this unmanifest is itself called continuation." Since the real substance continues, how could it be conventional? Furthermore, although the unmanifest of absorption does not operate throughout all four states to be called unmanifest, the statement of 'four states' is spoken according to applicability, not that all unmanifests must pervade the four states. For instance, the unmanifest accompanying absorption operates in mindful states, the unwholesome unmanifest operates in confused and unconfused states, while the scattered wholesome unmanifest operates throughout all four states. You establish the mindless state as one of the states—could the unmanifest accompanying absorption ever operate there? The objection raised by adducing manifest action is also unreasonable: once initiated by a resolute intention, it continues spontaneously, and operating in those states is the characteristic of the unmanifest. Manifest action, although initiated by mind, ceases when the mind is interrupted and is not spontaneous; therefore, it does not constitute a parallel case.