俱舍論記 25.20

25.20

「論曰至然並非先」者，總標釋頌。六種姓中，不動種姓必無退姓及退果理，前之五種皆有退義。於前五中，後思等四皆有可從種姓退義，如從堪達等退至安住等。退法一種無退姓理，由此種姓最居下故，更無退處。五種皆有從果退義，雖思等四俱有退姓及退果義，然並非先。所以不言先退法者，以先退法有退果義，故此文中云並非先，不攝退法。或可此文言並非先，從多分說，理實退法先亦退果。

Regarding 'The treatise says… yet none of them are the initial [stage]': this is a general statement explaining the verse. Among the six spiritual families, the unshakeable (akopya) family definitely has no principle of falling away from its family or falling away from its fruit; the preceding five kinds all possess the meaning of falling away. Among the preceding five, the latter four, beginning with deliberation (cetanā), all have the meaning of being capable of falling away from their spiritual family, as when one falls away from capable of penetration (prativedhanā-bhabba) and so forth to abiding (sthitākampya) and so forth. The single [family] of the dharma of falling away (parihāṇa-dharma) has no principle of falling away from its spiritual family, because this spiritual family is at the very lowest level, and there is no further place to fall away to. All five kinds possess the meaning of falling away from the fruit. Although the four beginning with deliberation all possess the meaning of both falling away from the family and falling away from the fruit, nonetheless none of them are the initial [stage]. The reason it does not mention the initial [family of] the dharma of falling away is that the initial [family of] the dharma of falling away does possess the meaning of falling away from the fruit; therefore, this text says 'yet none of them are the initial [stage]' so as not to include the dharma of falling away. Alternatively, when this text says 'none of them are the initial [stage]', it speaks in terms of the majority, whereas in truth the dharma of falling away also falls away from the fruit even initially.