俱舍論記 13.211

13.211

「毘婆沙師至通果心起」者，毘婆沙師通彼引頌。佛不樂散，於四威儀能常在定，然於散位非無三無記心。工巧處心佛不多起，故略不說，非全不起。故《婆沙》解威儀、工巧中有說佛故，如前具引。此論等工巧中不說佛者，略而不論。又解：說三無記，據現行說。工巧，佛雖成就，不現行故不說。又解：工巧，佛亦不成，以多為邪命等故。故此論及《正理》解成就無記中威儀即云如佛及馬勝苾芻及餘善習者，工巧但云如毘濕縛羯磨天及餘善習者，即不言佛。若爾，《婆沙》言佛豈不相違？解云：論意各別。雖有三解，以初解為正，非但有文證，亦與理相應。

"The Vaibhāṣikas... minds of transformed fruition arise": the Vaibhāṣikas resolve the verse cited by them. The Buddha takes no pleasure in distraction and can be constantly in concentration in the four postures, yet in the state of distraction he is not without the three indeterminate minds. Because the Buddha does not frequently produce minds of the arts and crafts, they are omitted from the explanation, not that they never arise at all. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, in explaining posture and the arts and crafts, mentions the Buddha, as fully cited before. That this treatise and others do not mention the Buddha in connection with the arts and crafts is an omission for brevity. Another interpretation: stating three indeterminate minds is based on what is actively manifest; although the Buddha possesses [the art and crafts mind], it does not become manifest, hence it is not mentioned. Yet another interpretation: the Buddha does not possess it at all, because it mostly involves wrong livelihood, etc. Thus this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra, in explaining the possession of indeterminate states, state with respect to posture: 'as the Buddha, the monk Aśvajit, and other skilled practitioners', while with respect to the arts and crafts they merely say: 'as the god Viśvakarman and other skilled practitioners', without mentioning the Buddha. If so, does this not contradict the Mahāvibhāṣā's mention of the Buddha? The explanation is: the intents of the treatises differ. Although there are three explanations, the first explanation is correct; not only is there textual evidence, but it also accords with reason.