俱舍論記 27.75

27.75

「此四所緣至如無諍說」者，釋第十句，此顯同、異。此四無礙所緣、自性、依地三種，與前無諍差別如是。種姓、依身如無諍說，謂不動種姓依三洲人身。又《婆沙》一百八十云「世者皆墮三世。法、辨二無礙解緣三世。詞無礙解，過去緣過去、現在緣現在、未來生者緣未來，不生緣三世。有說：法與詞同。有說：法、詞、辨三無礙解，過去、現在緣過去，未來緣三世。義無礙解，或有欲令唯緣離世，或有欲令緣三世及離世。」然無評家。

Regarding the passage from "The objects of these four" up to "as explained in non-conflict": this explains the tenth line, showing similarities and differences. The objects, intrinsic nature, and supported stages of these four analytical knowledges differ from the aforementioned araṇā in this way. Their lineage (gotra) and supported personal physical basis are as explained in araṇā, meaning they belong to the immoveable lineage and rely on the human body of the three continents. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 180, states: "As for time: they all fall into the three periods of time. The two analytical knowledges of Dharma and Pratibhāna take the three periods of time as their object. As for Nirukti-pratisaṃvid, the past takes the past as object, the present takes the present as object, and that arising in the future takes the future as object, while that which does not arise takes the three periods of time as object. Some say: Dharma is the same as Nirukti. Some say: the three analytical knowledges of Dharma, Nirukti, and Pratibhāna in the past and present take the past as object, while in the future they take the three periods of time as object. As for Artha-pratisaṃvid, some would have it take only what is separated from time (kālavimukta) as object, while others would have it take the three periods of time and what is separated from time as object." However, no evaluative judgment is given.