俱舍論記 4.256

4.256

「此法非得至捨於非得」者，答。捨分別門。二時捨非得：一此法非得，得此法時，捨此非得。此據以得替於非得處，說名為捨。如聖道非得名異生性，得此聖道時捨彼非得。二轉易地時捨此非得，此非定有得替非得處，以彼非得隨所依身，但捨身時非得亦捨。於轉易地，雖非能捨異生性盡，亦捨少分。餘法非得，隨其所應類此應思。若非得上法俱得斷，於所捨非得上復有非得生，非得前非得，如是名為捨於非得。據實而言，於所捨非得上法俱得，亦有非得生。此文正明捨非得故，但言非得非得生，不言得非得生。問：非得無記，剎那成就，得已即捨，無前、後得。於前非得既不成就，有非得起，是即剎那剎那皆捨非得，如何乃言得法易地方捨非得？解：云實有斯理。今言捨非得者，據捨一類盡，非據捨少分。

"The non-possession of this dharma... abandons the non-possession": this answers. It is the section analyzing abandonment. Non-possession is abandoned at two times: First, non-possession of this dharma is abandoned when this dharma is acquired. This is spoken of as abandonment on the basis that possession takes the place of non-possession. For example, non-possession of the noble path is called ordinary-being-nature; when one acquires this noble path, one abandons that non-possession. Second, one abandons this non-possession when changing stages. This does not necessarily involve possession taking the place of non-possession; because that non-possession follows the body on which it is based, merely when one abandons the body, the non-possession is also abandoned. When changing stages, although one cannot abandon ordinary-being-nature completely, one abandons a portion of it. The non-possession of other dharmas should be understood by analogy with this, according to what is appropriate. If the possession co-arising with the dharma above the non-possession is severed, on the non-possession being abandoned there further arises non-possession, non-possessing the prior non-possession; this is called abandoning the non-possession. In actual fact, upon the possession co-arising with the dharma above the non-possession being abandoned, non-possession also arises. Because this text directly clarifies the abandonment of non-possession, it only says that non-possession of non-possession arises, and does not say that non-possession of possession arises. Question: Non-possession is indeterminate (avyākṛta), achieved moment by moment, and once acquired it is immediately abandoned, without prior or posterior possession. Since one does not achieve the prior non-possession, non-possession arises; this means that in every single moment one abandons non-possession. Why then does it say that non-possession is only abandoned upon acquiring the dharma or changing stages? Answer: In truth this principle holds. Here, saying that non-possession is abandoned refers to abandoning an entire category completely, not to abandoning a small portion.