俱舍論記 26.81

26.81

「豈不於前至不相應故」者，第二師指同前破。豈不於前第一師已破此說？若貪不相應名離貪心者，餘惑相應者應得離貪名，彼亦與貪不相應故。如何乃立所破義耶？

Regarding [the text from] “Did not previously” up to “because of not being associated?”: this is the second master pointing out that this is identical to the earlier refutation. Was this explanation not already refuted earlier by the first master? If being unassociated with lust is called a mind free from lust, then minds associated with other afflictions should receive the name 'free from lust', because they are also not associated with lust. How can you now establish a proposition that has already been refuted?