俱舍論記 23.53

23.53

「失退二捨至失不必然」者，釋後一句。失、退二捨，以捨得故，非得為體。退必起過，起惑退故。失不必然，失謂命終或是易地，不必起過，以命終心通三性故。故《正理》云「退捨必因起過而得，失捨或有由位增進（解云：失謂越地，或但命終。聖越地時名位增進；異生不爾，故說或言）。」

"The two abandonings of loss and regression ... loss is not necessarily so": this explains the last line. The two abandonings of loss and regression take non-attainment as their nature, because they are the abandoning of attainment. Regression must arise from a fault, because one regresses through the arising of defilement. Loss is not necessarily so: loss means the end of life or changing stages, which does not necessarily arise from a fault, because the mind at the end of life can be of all three moral natures. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Abandoning through regression is definitely attained because of the arising of a fault; abandoning through loss may sometimes be due to advancement of stage (Explanation: Loss means surpassing a stage, or simply the end of life. When a noble one surpasses a stage, it is called advancement of stage; for an ordinary person it is not so, hence it says 'may sometimes')."