俱舍論記 17.125

17.125

「已辨三世至不遮等流」者，此即第四諸地相對果。以此文證離繫果非地法攝。又解：通舉九地業，以同地法為四果。若別分別，上八地業以同地法為五果。故《雜心論》云「若正思惟地亦有解脫果。」若准《雜心》文，離繫果亦地法攝。離繫既是無為，不依地起，如何可說地法所攝？故知此論所說為善。餘思可知。

Regarding the passage from "Having distinguished the three periods of time" up to "does not exclude nisyanda": this is the fourth [section], on the fruits [of karmas] in relation to the various bhūmis. This text proves that the fruit of disjunction is not subsumed within the dharmas of a bhūmi. Another explanation is: generally taking up the karmas of the nine bhūmis, they have four fruits with respect to the dharmas of the same bhūmi. If distinguished specifically, the karmas of the upper eight bhūmis have five fruits with respect to the dharmas of the same bhūmi. Thus the Miśrakābhidharma-hṛdaya says: "If [it is] the bhūmi of samyak-saṃkalpa, it also has the fruit of liberation (mokṣa-phala)." If one relies on the text of the Miśrakābhidharma-hṛdaya, the fruit of disjunction is also subsumed within the dharmas of a bhūmi. Since disjunction is asaṃskṛta and does not arise relying on a bhūmi, how could it be said to be subsumed within the dharmas of a bhūmi? Therefore one knows that what this treatise states is correct. The rest can be understood by contemplation.