俱舍論記 2.19

2.19

「若爾無漏應唯無記」者，論主意存前解，故難破後家。若言不記異熟名無記者，無漏不能記異熟果，應唯無記。若言有為無漏亦有異熟，以擇滅為果。常、無常為異，證得名熟。此亦不然，有為無漏或容此釋；無為擇滅既無有果，如何名善？若言為能作因有增上果，有違自宗。設許不礙取增上果，理亦不然。無記之法亦不障礙取增上果，應名有記。若言擇滅體可讚故說為善者，即同前解，重說唐捐。

On the passage, "If so, the uncontaminated should be exclusively neutral": the author of the treatise endorses the previous explanation, and therefore poses an objection to refute this latter school. If you say that not declaring maturation is the meaning of neutral, then since the uncontaminated cannot declare a fruit of maturation, it should be exclusively neutral. If you say that the conditioned uncontaminated also has maturation, taking analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as its fruit—with eternal and impermanent being the difference, and attainment being called maturation—this too is incorrect. The conditioned uncontaminated might allow this explanation; but since unconditioned analytical cessation has no fruit whatsoever, how could it be called wholesome? If you say that as an efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu) it has an overarching fruit (adhipati-phala), that contradicts your own school's tenets. Even granting that it does not hinder the acquisition of an overarching fruit, in principle that is also incorrect: neutral phenomena also do not hinder the acquisition of an overarching fruit, so they ought to be called determinate. If you say that analytical cessation is said to be wholesome because its entity is praiseworthy, then that is identical to the previous explanation, making this restatement redundant.