俱舍論記 4.220

4.220

「又見修所至皆非所斷」者，三斷分別門。見、修所斷法體是有為，能得隨彼亦是見、修所斷。一切無漏名非所斷法，得有差別，總說有二：或修所斷、或非所斷。若別分別，非擇滅得唯修所斷，隨所依身同修斷故。若有漏道所引擇滅得，亦唯修斷，以隨能證道同修斷故。若無漏道所引擇滅得，隨能證道是無漏故，名非所斷。若道諦得，道是有為，得隨所得同是無漏，名非所斷。問：頌文但明非所斷，何故長行通明三斷？解云：頌窄別標、或通二斷，是故別顯。或舉後顯初。

"Furthermore, what is to be abandoned by vision and cultivation [...] all are not to be abandoned" is the section distinguishing the three abandonments. The entities of dharmas to be abandoned by vision and cultivation are conditioned; their possessors, conforming to them, are also to be abandoned by vision and cultivation. All uncontaminated dharmas are called dharmas not to be abandoned, whose possessions have distinctions, generally said to be of two kinds: either to be abandoned by cultivation, or not to be abandoned. Specifically, the possession of non-analytical cessation is only to be abandoned by cultivation, because conforming to the physical body that supports it, it is likewise abandoned by cultivation. The possession of analytical cessation induced by a contaminated path is also only abandoned by cultivation, because conforming to the path capable of realizing it, it is likewise abandoned by cultivation. The possession of analytical cessation induced by an uncontaminated path, conforming to the path capable of realizing it being uncontaminated, is called not to be abandoned. The possession of the truth of the path—since the path is conditioned, its possession conforms to what is possessed, being likewise uncontaminated—is called not to be abandoned. Question: The verse text only explains 'not to be abandoned'; why does the prose text explain all three abandonments? Explanation: The verse is concise and singles it out specifically, or because it applies to two abandonments, it is therefore separately highlighted. Or, mentioning the latter clarifies the former.