俱舍論記 13.139

13.139

「應知有表至是有執受」者，釋後兩句，此明表業於五類中同類因生故是等流。唯言，簡餘四種。非異熟因生故非異熟生，無別勝緣故非所長養，從同類因生故非剎那，是有為故非實。表業有二，謂身及語。表若屬身，扶根生故，是有執受。表若屬語，不扶根故，是無執受。問：若身表業是有執受，何故《品類足論》說諸表業是無執受？解云：論者意異，難為會釋。又解：品類表業據暫起在身，猶如客寄。心、心所法非能執受，故云表業是無執受。《俱舍》等論據多時起相續在身，心、心所法能執受故，故云表業是有執受。各據一義，竝不相違。所以不言情、非情者，依內起表已顯有情，故不別說。

"It should be known that informative matter […] is grasped at": this explains the last two lines, clarifying that among the five classes, informative karma, being born from causes of the same class, is of uniform outflow. The word "only" excludes the other four classes. Because it does not arise from a cause of fruition, it is not born of fruition; because it lacks distinct superior conditions, it is not fostered; because it is born from causes of the same class, it is not momentary; because it is conditioned, it is not real. There are two kinds of informative karma: bodily and vocal. If the information belongs to the body, because it supports the faculties in their arising, it is grasped at. If the information belongs to speech, because it does not support the faculties, it is not grasped at. Question: If bodily informative karma is grasped at, why does the Prakaraṇapāda say that all informative karma is not grasped at? Explanation: The treatise masters have different intentions, which are difficult to reconcile. Another explanation: The Prakaraṇapāda refers to informative karma as occurring transiently in the body, like a guest lodging there; the mind and mental factors cannot grasp at it, and therefore it says informative karma is not grasped at. Treatises such as the Kośa refer to it as arising over a long time and continuing in the body, where the mind and mental factors are able to grasp at it, and therefore say informative karma is grasped at. Each is based on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other. As for why sentient or non-sentient is not mentioned: informative matter arising dependent on the internal has already indicated sentient beings, and therefore is not stated separately.