俱舍論記 26.49

26.49

「是故應許至名有貪心」者，論主難訖復作是言：是故應許說一切有部餘師所說，為貪所繫名有貪心，對治貪心名離貪心。其離貪心同第一師，故不別說。故《婆沙》云「如是說者好，謂貪所繫故名有貪心，貪對治故名離貪心。」又解：後師既說為貪所繫名有貪心，明知貪對治故名離貪心，唯取無漏。若作此解，可攝心盡。論主此文權難第一師、立第二師，至後文中第二亦破。

Regarding "Therefore, one should accept [what another master of the Sarvāstivāda says: 'A mind bound by attachment is called a mind with attachment']": after concluding his objection, the author of the treatise further says: Therefore, one should accept what is stated by another master of the Sarvāstivāda: that which is bound by attachment is called a mind with attachment, and a mind that counteracts attachment is called a mind free from attachment. His [definition of] the mind free from attachment is the same as that of the first master, so it is not separately explained. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā says: "Such a statement is sound, namely, that because it is bound by attachment it is called a mind with attachment, and because it is the antidote to attachment it is called a mind free from attachment." Another explanation is: since the latter master states that being bound by attachment is called a mind with attachment, one clearly knows that because it is the antidote to attachment it is called a mind free from attachment, taking only the uncontaminated (anāsrava). If interpreted this way, it can exhaustively subsume all minds. In this passage, the author of the treatise provisionally uses an objection against the first master to establish the second master, but later in the text, the second master's [view] will also be refuted.