俱舍論記 29.35

29.35

「八中前三至皆五蘊性」者，釋第二句。八解脫中前三解脫，無貪為性，近治貪故。然契經中言想觀者，於貪聚中想增言想，於無貪聚中觀增言觀，故言想觀。三中，初、二不淨相轉，作青瘀等諸行相故。第三解脫清淨相轉，作淨光鮮行相轉故。俱治於貪故，以無貪為體。若并助伴，皆五蘊性。問：何故《婆沙》云「欲界者以四蘊為自性，色界者以五蘊為自性。」解云：此論據勝，《婆沙》兼據似說。問：《婆沙》明依界、依地中，何故不言依欲界地？解云：出體強、弱兼論，故言四蘊。界、地唯約勝說，不言欲界。

Regarding "among the eight, the first three, up to: all have the nature of the five skandhas": this explains the second line. Among the eight liberations, the first three liberations have non-greed as their nature, because they directly counteract greed. However, in the sūtra it speaks of "ideation and contemplation" because within the collection of greed, ideation is predominant, so it says "ideation"; within the collection of non-greed, contemplation is predominant, so it says "contemplation"; hence it speaks of ideation and contemplation. Among the three, the first two operate with an impure aspect, taking on aspects such as lividity and the like. The third liberation operates with a pure aspect, operating with the aspect of pure and radiant beauty. Because they both counteract greed, they take non-greed as their essential nature. If including their accompanying mental factors, they all have the nature of the five skandhas. Question: Why does the Mahāvibhāṣā say: "That of the desire realm has the four skandhas as its intrinsic nature, while that of the form realm has the five skandhas as its intrinsic nature"? The explanation is: this treatise speaks according to the superior, whereas the Mahāvibhāṣā additionally speaks according to what resembles them. Question: When the Mahāvibhāṣā clarifies the realms and stages on which they are based, why does it not say they are based on the stage of the desire realm? The explanation is: when defining the intrinsic nature, strong and weak are both discussed, hence it says four skandhas; but for realms and stages, it speaks solely in terms of the superior, and so does not mention the desire realm.