俱舍論頌疏論本 5.35

5.35

生住異滅性者，出體也。此中於法能起名生，能安名住，能衰名異，能壞名滅。性者體義，謂薩婆多宗四相有實故也。論云：「豈不經說有三有為之有為相？」解云：此引經為難也。經說三相，論今說四，豈不相違？有三者，能相也。有為者，所相法也。之者，顯依主釋。重言有為者，令知此相表示法體，成有為故。「此三相者，有為之相，於此經中應說有四。」解云：於此經中理應說四也。不說者何（徵也）？所謂住相。然經說住異，是此異別名，如生名起，滅名為盡，如是應知異名住異。解云：有三師釋經，此一師釋也。經不說住，說三相：一起、二住異、三盡。然經說住異相，是此論說異相別名，謂依住辨異，故所以異名住異也。如起者生之別名，如盡相滅之別名，故知異相是住異之別名也。若法令行三世遷流，此經說為有為之相，令諸有情生厭畏故。謂彼諸行生力所遷，令從未來流入現在。異及滅相力所遷迫，令從現在流入過去，令其衰異，及壞滅故。住於彼行攝受安樂，常樂與彼不相捨離，故不立在有為相中。解云：是第一師釋經意也。三相遷行，故經說之。住樂安立，故經不說也。又無為法有自相住，住相濫彼，故經不說也。注曰：此第二師釋經也。無為湛然是自相住也。有謂此經說：住與異總合為一，名住異相。注曰：此第三師說也。經說住異，兩相合說，不同初師唯是異相。何用如是總合說為（問也）？住是有情所愛著處，為令厭捨，與異合說，如示黑耳與吉祥俱，是故定有四有為相（答也）。吉祥、黑耳姊妹二人恒相隨逐。姊名吉祥，所至之處為吉祥事。妹名黑耳，由耳黑故，故以名焉，所至之處能為衰損。愚人貪愛吉祥，智者為令厭捨，先示黑耳。住喻吉祥，異喻黑耳，欲令厭住，與異合說也。

"The natures of arising, staying, change, and destruction" discloses the essential nature. Here, in regard to dharmas, that which can cause to arise is called "arising"; that which can stabilize is called "staying"; that which can decay is called "change"; that which can disintegrate is called "destruction." "Nature" means essential nature, because according to the Sarvāstivāda school the four characteristics are real entities. The Śāstra states: "Does the sūtra not speak of 'three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned'?" Explanation: this cites a sūtra to raise an objection. The sūtra speaks of three characteristics, whereas this treatise now speaks of four; are they not contradictory? "There are three" refers to the characterizing factors. "The conditioned" refers to the characterized dharmas. The word "of" indicates a genitive tatpuruṣa compound. Repeating the word "conditioned" is to make known that these characteristics designate the substantial entity of the dharma, establishing it as conditioned. [The Śāstra continues:] "These three characteristics are characteristics of the conditioned; in this sūtra, four should have been taught." Explanation: logically, four should have been taught in this sūtra. Why were [four] not taught (this is an inquiry)? Namely, the characteristic of staying. However, the sūtra speaks of "the change of staying," which is another name for this change, just as arising is called origination and destruction is called cessation; thus one should know that change is called "the change of staying." Explanation: three masters explain the sūtra; this is the explanation of the first master. The sūtra does not speak of staying, but speaks of three characteristics: first, origination; second, the change of staying; third, cessation. However, the sūtra's statement of the characteristic of "the change of staying" is an alternative name for the characteristic of change discussed in this treatise, meaning that change is discerned with reference to staying, and therefore change is named "the change of staying." Just as origination is an alternative name for arising, and the characteristic of cessation is an alternative name for destruction, one thus knows that the characteristic of change is an alternative name for "the change of staying." If a dharma causes conditioned factors to migrate and flow through the three times, this sūtra speaks of it as a characteristic of the conditioned in order to induce disgust and fear in sentient beings. That is, those conditioned factors are impelled by the power of arising, causing them to flow from the future into the present. They are impelled and driven by the power of the characteristics of change and destruction, causing them to flow from the present into the past, causing them to decay and change, and to disintegrate and perish. Staying brings about peace and happiness for those conditioned factors, constantly delighting in being unseparated from them, and therefore it is not established among the characteristics of the conditioned. Explanation: this is the intention of the first master in explaining the sūtra. The three characteristics cause conditioned factors to migrate, and therefore the sūtra speaks of them. Staying establishes them in happiness, and therefore the sūtra does not speak of it. Furthermore, unconditioned dharmas have staying as their own intrinsic mark; because the characteristic of staying could be confused with them, the sūtra does not speak of it. Note: this is the second master's explanation of the sūtra. The unconditioned is serene and still; this is staying as its own intrinsic mark. Some say this sūtra speaks by combining staying and change together as one, naming it the characteristic of "the change of staying." Note: this is the explanation of the third master. The sūtra speaks of "the change of staying," combining the two characteristics together in speech, unlike the first master for whom it is solely the characteristic of change. Why should they be spoken of in combination like this (this is an inquiry)? Staying is an object of attachment for sentient beings; in order to cause them to feel disgust and abandon it, it is spoken of in combination with change, just as showing Kālakarṇī accompanied by Lakṣmī; therefore, there are definitely four characteristics of the conditioned (this is the reply). Lakṣmī and Kālakarṇī are two sisters who constantly accompany each other. The elder sister is named Lakṣmī; wherever she goes, she brings auspicious matters. The younger sister is named Kālakarṇī; because her ears are black, she is named after that; wherever she goes, she can cause decline and loss. Foolish people crave Lakṣmī; the wise, in order to make them feel disgust and abandon her, first show them Kālakarṇī. Staying is analogized to Lakṣmī, and change is analogized to Kālakarṇī; wishing to cause disgust toward staying, it is spoken of in combination with change.