俱舍論記 16.63

16.63

「貪瞋邪見至後起差別」者，起輕貪等但是獨頭，輕貪瞋等非是業道加行、後起。若於根本，起即業道。《正理》四十一有兩說。初說同此論。更一說云「如是說者亦具三分。有不善思於貪、瞋等能為前後助伴事故（解云：不共無明、四見、疑、慢等相應不善思，與貪、瞋、邪見為加行、後起。《正理》意存此說）。」又《婆沙》一百一十三云「其餘貪欲、瞋恚、邪見意三業道，起即根本，非有加行、後起差別。有說：亦有加行、後起，謂不善思。此論以前師為正，《正理》以後師為正。《婆沙》既無評家，隨作論者意所樂故。

Regarding "covetousness, malice, and wrong view ... [have no] distinction of preparatory and subsequent [stages]": arising mild covetousness and the like is merely isolated [defilement]; mild covetousness, malice, and so forth are not the preparations or the subsequent acts of a path of action. When it comes to the fundamental [act], its arising is itself the path of action. Fascicle 41 of the Nyāyānusāra gives two explanations. The first explanation agrees with this treatise. The second explanation states: "According to this explanation, they also possess the three divisions. There is unwholesome volition that can serve as the prior and subsequent auxiliary matter for covetousness, malice, and so forth (Gloss: Unwholesome volition associated with unshared ignorance, the four views, doubt, arrogance, and the like serves as preparation and subsequent act for covetousness, malice, and wrong view. The Nyāyānusāra's intention favours this explanation)." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 113, states: "As for the other three mental paths of action—covetousness, malice, and wrong view—their arising is itself the fundamental [act]; they have no distinction of preparatory and subsequent [stages]. Some say: They also have preparation and subsequent act, namely unwholesome volition." This treatise takes the former master's [view] as correct, whereas the Nyāyānusāra takes the latter master's [view] as correct. Since the Mahāvibhāṣā has no evaluating authority on this, it follows what the respective treatise-master prefers.