成唯識論述記 2.133

2.133

述曰：次破正量部，彼計身業以「動」為體，如《成業論》、《俱舍》十三，別有一物，色等動時，「能動」名身業。今言：亦非實有，纔生即滅無動義故，非謂纔生即滅證非實法，心、心所法亦實有故。彼言動者，是長時滅法，如有人行，從初發至住，一期之間有此動故。初行名生，中間名住，乃至終盡位時名滅。今言「生已即滅，無有動義」，非「生即滅」謂一切假。應云：汝動「生已應滅」；有生法故；如心、心所。依論量云：諸法無實動義；纔生即滅故；如心、心所。彼心、心所剎那即滅，然無動義。

The Commentary states: Next is the refutation of the Saṃmatīya, who posit that bodily karma has 'movement' as its substance. As stated in the Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa and the thirteenth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa, [they hold that] there is a distinct entity, and when form and so forth move, that which 'can move' is called bodily karma. Now [the treatise] says: It is also not truly existent, because things perish as soon as they arise, so there is no such thing as movement. This does not mean that 'perishing as soon as it arises' proves it is not a real dharma, for citta and caitasikas are also truly existent. What they call movement is a dharma of long-duration destruction; just as when a person walks, from the first departure until stopping, throughout that duration there is this movement. Initial walking is called arising, the middle is called abiding, and up to the final stage is called destruction. Now saying 'having arisen, it immediately perishes, so there is no movement' does not mean that 'perishing as soon as it arises' implies everything is nominal. One should say: Your movement should perish as soon as it has arisen; because it is an originated dharma; like citta and caitasikas. Formulating the syllogism based on the treatise: All dharmas have no real meaning of movement; because they perish as soon as they arise; like citta and caitasikas. Those citta and caitasikas perish moment by moment, yet have no meaning of movement.