俱舍論記 17.129

17.129

「論曰至二說差別」者，應作等三各有兩說。初師意說：染污三業名不應作，諸善三業名為應作，諸無覆無記三業名為第三。後師意說：染污三業及無覆中，諸壞軌則不合禮儀身、語二業，並能等起此二業思，皆名不應作。謂染污全、無覆少分。諸善三業，及無覆中不壞軌則合俗禮儀身、語二業，并能等起此二業思，皆名應作，謂善業全、無覆少分。於無覆中除應作、不應作三業，所餘三業名為第三。於二師中，前約勝義盡理而說，後約世俗而非盡理。故《正理》云「若依世俗，後亦可然。若就勝義，前說為善（已上論文）。」既知寬、狹，釋文可知。

Regarding the passage from "The treatise says" up to "the difference between the two explanations": each of the three, such as what ought to be done, has two explanations. The intention of the first master says: the three defiled karmas are called what ought not to be done; the three good karmas are called what ought to be done; and the three non-obscured neutral karmas are called the third. The intention of the second master says: the three defiled karmas, as well as those body and speech karmas among the non-obscured that violate decorum and do not conform to etiquette, together with the volitions that can equivalently motivate these two karmas, are all called what ought not to be done—that is, all of the defiled and a small portion of the non-obscured. The three good karmas, as well as those body and speech karmas among the non-obscured that do not violate decorum and conform to conventional etiquette, together with the volitions that can equivalently motivate these two karmas, are all called what ought to be done—that is, all of good karma and a small portion of the non-obscured. Among the non-obscured, excluding the three karmas of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, the remaining three karmas are called the third. Between the two masters, the former speaks from the ultimate truth, exhausting the principle, whereas the latter speaks according to conventional truth and does not exhaust the principle. Hence the Nyāyānusāra says: "If relying on the conventional, the latter is also acceptable. If approaching from the ultimate truth, the former explanation is correct (end of treatise quotation)." Once the narrower and broader scopes are known, the text explaining them can be understood.