俱舍論疏 5.165

5.165

論「諸行有為至由四隨相」，此釋諸行有為。有其二義：一法體生滅由四本相、二得有為名由四本相。本相有為，亦准此釋。《正理論》云「世尊何處說隨相耶？豈不此經亦說隨相，謂生等相亦是有為故，生生等相亦起等性故。契經既說有三有為之有為相，有為之起亦可了知，盡及住異亦可了知，如何此中不攝隨相？又於諸相皆有亦言，故此經中亦說隨相。言有為之起亦可了知者，起即本相生，亦表生生義。盡及住異亦可知言，類起亦言應如理釋。若不爾者，何用亦言？故契經中於無為法，說尚無有起等可知。此說意言：諸無為法尚無生等本相可知，況生生等隨相可得？若不爾者，應但說無起等可知，不應言尚。又薄伽梵於契經中說諸有為相復有相故。契經說色有起盡，此復應知亦有起盡。乃至廣說又契經說老死生等，由此故知相復有相。」

On the passage in the śāstra from “The conditioned nature of all formations…” to “…by virtue of the four secondary characteristics”: This explains the conditioned nature of all formations. It has two meanings: first, the arising and cessation of the substance of phenomena are due to the four primary characteristics; second, they obtain the name ‘conditioned’ due to the four primary characteristics. That the primary characteristics are conditioned is also explained accordingly. The Nyāyānusāra states: “Where did the World-Honoured One speak of the secondary characteristics? Does not this very sūtra also speak of the secondary characteristics, because the characteristics of arising and so forth are themselves conditioned, and because the characteristics such as the arising-of-arising are also of the nature of origination and so forth? Since the sūtra states that there are three characteristics of the conditioned belonging to the conditioned, and that the origination of the conditioned is also discernible, and its exhaustion and difference of duration are also discernible, how could the secondary characteristics not be subsumed here? Furthermore, with respect to all the characteristics there is the word ‘also’ (api); therefore, this sūtra also speaks of the secondary characteristics. Saying that the origination of the conditioned is also discernible: ‘origination’ refers to the primary characteristic of arising, and ‘also’ expresses the meaning of the arising-of-arising. The statements that exhaustion and the difference of duration are also discernible should be properly explained following the same pattern as the word ‘also’ with origination. If it were not so, what purpose would the word ‘also’ serve? Therefore, in the sūtra, regarding unconditioned phenomena, it says that there is not even any origination and so forth to be discerned. The intention of this statement is: regarding unconditioned phenomena, not even the primary characteristics of arising and so forth can be discerned, so how much less could the secondary characteristics such as the arising-of-arising be obtained? If it were not so, it should simply say that there is no origination and so forth to be discerned, and should not say ‘not even.’ Furthermore, the Bhagavān said in the sūtras that the characteristics of the conditioned themselves have characteristics again. The sūtra states that material form has origination and exhaustion, and that this should further be known to also have origination and exhaustion, and so forth in detail. Furthermore, the sūtra speaks of aging, death, and birth, and so forth; from this we know that characteristics themselves have further characteristics.”