俱舍論記 6.67

6.67

「彼文應說至由義應知非」者，論主正通。彼《品類足》第三節中文應說除未來有身見相應苦諦；此文不欲除有身見，但除有身見上相應法，無「及彼」二字。外難意欲除有身見，故於第三節文中加「及彼」二字。《品類足》文設有如彼說「及彼」二字，由義應知非，以未來世無前後故，何況浪加有身見。既非入所除，明知未來無同類因。應知俱有因中，外人引《品類足》所除中第四節文為難，即不誦「及彼相應法」五字。若同類因中，引所除中第三節文為難，即加「及彼」二字。前後各別引文，人多不悟，應善思之。

"That text should say... from the meaning it should be known to be incorrect": the author provides the correct resolution. In that third clause of the Prakaraṇapāda, the text should read: "excluding the truth of suffering associated with future view of individuality"; this text does not intend to exclude view of individuality itself, but only excludes the associated phenomena accompanying view of individuality, and does not have the two characters "and that" [i.e., "and view of individuality itself"]. The opponent intended to exclude view of individuality, and so added the two characters "and that" to the third clause. Even if the text of the Prakaraṇapāda had read "and that" as they claim, from the meaning it should be known to be incorrect, because the future has no before and after, not to mention recklessly adding view of individuality itself. Since it is not included in what is excluded, one clearly knows that the future has no cause of the same type. It should be known that in the discussion of the coexistent cause, when the outsider cited the fourth clause of the excluded section in the Prakaraṇapāda as an objection, they omitted the five characters "and its associated phenomena"; whereas in the discussion of the cause of the same type, when citing the third clause of the excluded section as an objection, they added the two characters "and that." They cited the texts differently before and after, which many people fail to realize; one should reflect on this carefully.