俱舍論記 4.217

4.217

「又善等法至無記三得」者，三性分別門。此得大分雖約所得判性，於中非無少分差別。故《婆沙》一百五十八云「問：何故得與所得法性類或同或異耶？答：得有三種，一有為法得、二擇滅得、三非擇滅得。有為法得隨所得法性類差別，以有為法能有作用引自得故。擇滅得隨能得道性類差別，以諸擇滅自無作用，但由道力求證彼時引彼得故。非擇滅得隨自所依性類差別，以非擇滅自無作用、非道所求，彼得但依命根、眾同分而現前故。」

"Furthermore, good and other dharmas [...] indeterminate have three possessions" is the section distinguishing the three natures. Although this possession for the most part determines its nature in accordance with the dharma possessed, within this there are nevertheless slight distinctions. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 158, states: "Question: Why are possession and the dharma possessed sometimes of the same nature and type, and sometimes different? Answer: Possessions are of three kinds: 1. possession of conditioned dharmas; 2. possession of analytical cessation; 3. possession of non-analytical cessation. Possession of conditioned dharmas differentiates its nature and type in accordance with the dharma possessed, because conditioned dharmas are capable of functioning to induce their own possession. Possession of analytical cessation differentiates its nature and type in accordance with the path capable of attaining it, because analytical cessations themselves have no functioning, and it is only by the power of the path when one seeks to realize them that their possession is induced. Possession of non-analytical cessation differentiates its nature and type in accordance with its own support, because non-analytical cessation itself has no functioning and is not sought by the path; its possession manifests merely in reliance on the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga (group similarity)."