俱舍論記 20.115

20.115

「又餘經說至名欲等取」者，又述經部引經釋四取以貪為體。又餘經說：欲貪名取。即欲名貪，非是欲界貪故名為欲貪。由此故知，於欲等四境所起欲貪名欲等取，緣五欲境起貪名欲取，緣見起貪名見取，緣戒禁起貪名戒禁取，緣三界我語起貪名我語取。問：何故經部但說軛、取，不說四瀑流及與三漏？解云：論者略舉，對辨差別。又解：軛、取體異，是故別說。瀑流體同四軛，已說四軛，當知亦說瀑流。三漏不異當宗，故不說也。

Regarding "Furthermore, another sūtra states: [...] are called the graspings of sensual desire and so forth": this again relates the Sautrāntika citing a sūtra to explain that the four graspings have greed as their essence. Furthermore, another sūtra states: Desire-greed is called grasping. That is, desire is greed itself, not that it is called desire-greed because it is greed of the desire realm. Because of this, it is known that the desire-greed arisen toward the four objects of sensual desire and so forth is called the graspings of sensual desire and so forth: giving rise to greed taking the objects of the five desires as domain is called sensual grasping (kāmopādāna); giving rise to greed taking views as domain is called view-grasping (dṛṣṭyupādāna); giving rise to greed taking rules and rituals as domain is called rules-and-rituals-grasping (śīlavratopādāna); giving rise to greed taking words of self across the three realms as domain is called words-of-self-grasping (ātmavādopādāna). Question: Why does the Sautrāntika speak only of yokes and graspings, and not of the four floods and the three outflows? The explanation is: the author of the treatise mentions them briefly in order to distinguish differences. Another explanation: yokes and graspings have different essences [according to the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika], and therefore are separately discussed. The essence of floods is identical to the four yokes, so having explained the four yokes, one should know that floods are also explained. The three outflows do not differ from their own school's [understanding], and therefore are not discussed.