俱舍論記 4.219

4.219

「又有學法至得即無學」者，三學分別門。學、無學法是有為故，得隨所得，是學、無學、非學非無學法得有差別。若總說，通三學。若別分別，一切有漏及三無為，是非學非無學。且有漏法唯有非學非無學得，以有為法得隨所得法判。若非擇滅得，隨所依判。若非聖道所引擇滅得，隨能證道判，皆有漏故，竝是非學非無學。若有學道所引擇滅，得即有學，隨能證道是有學故。若無學道轉根時，所引擇滅得即無學，隨能證道是無學故。問：學人以有漏、無漏道能斷無所有處已下八地修惑，隨用何道各能引起二離繫得。既互相引，云何隨道判性？解云：無漏道斷惑雖亦能引有漏得，有漏道斷惑雖亦能引無漏得，而非正引但是兼引，故不互隨二道判性，但隨自道。彼能證道雖復不起，然互相修，而由彼力擇滅得起，故各隨自能證道判。問：頌中但言非學非無學，何故長行具明三學？解云：頌中文窄唯論一種，長行文寬故具明三。又解：非學非無學得有差別，通三學故，所以別標。學、無學得各唯一種，無多差別，故不別顯。或舉後顯初。

"Furthermore, of dharmas of the trainee [...] possession is of the non-trainee" is the section distinguishing the three trainings. Because dharmas of the trainee and non-trainee are conditioned, their possession corresponds to what is possessed, being trainee or non-trainee; the possession of dharmas neither of the trainee nor of the non-trainee has distinctions. In general, it includes the three trainings. Specifically, all contaminated [dharmas] and the three unconditioned are neither of the trainee nor of the non-trainee. Now, contaminated dharmas have only possessions that are neither of the trainee nor of the non-trainee, because the possession of a conditioned dharma is determined by the dharma possessed. Possession of non-analytical cessation is determined by its support. Possession of analytical cessation induced by a non-noble path is determined by the path capable of realizing it; since both are contaminated, they are together neither of the trainee nor of the non-trainee. If analytical cessation is induced by the path of the trainee, the possession is of the trainee, because it conforms to the path capable of realizing it being of the trainee. When the faculties are transformed by the path of the non-trainee, the induced possession of analytical cessation is of the non-trainee, because it conforms to the path capable of realizing it being of the non-trainee. Question: When a trainee uses contaminated or uncontaminated paths to abandon the afflictions of cultivation in the eight stages from the stage of Nothingness downwards, whichever path is used can each induce both kinds of possession of disjunction (visaṃyoga-prāpti). Since they mutually induce them, how are their natures determined in accordance with the path? Explanation: Although the uncontaminated path's abandonment of afflictions can also induce contaminated possessions, and the contaminated path's abandonment of afflictions can also induce uncontaminated possessions, these are not direct inductions but merely secondary inductions; therefore their natures are not determined mutually following both paths, but only following their own path. Although that path capable of realizing them does not arise again, nevertheless they mutually cultivate each other, and by that power the possession of analytical cessation arises; therefore they are each determined in accordance with their own path capable of realizing them. Question: The verse only mentions 'neither of the trainee nor of the non-trainee'; why does the prose commentary fully explain the three trainings? Explanation: The verse text is concise and treats only one type; the prose text is broad and therefore fully explains the three. Another explanation: The possession of neither of the trainee nor of the non-trainee has distinctions, pervading the three trainings, which is why it is specifically singled out. The possessions of the trainee and non-trainee are each of only one kind without many distinctions, so they are not separately highlighted. Or, mentioning the latter clarifies the former.