俱舍論記 7.121

7.121

「毘婆沙師至違正理故」者，破救。意言：以決擇分作十六行部分觀，唯修同類十六行相。彼三雖是共相，太總不修，故言違理。又解：是彼類故、繫屬彼故、理亦不應起故，言違正理。故《正理》二十云「此救非理。繫屬加行所修作意，非得果後所引現前，是彼類故。此論三說，初師為正，當《婆沙》十一評家義故。第二師義據見道共入三出，亦可為正。然於修道、無學道中唯言共入三出，故亦非善。然此論文但破第三師唯共相出。

As for "The masters of the Vibhāṣā … because it violates correct reasoning": this refutes the rescue. The meaning is: Since the aids to penetration engage in the partial contemplation of the sixteen modes of aspects, they cultivate only the same kind of sixteen aspects. Although those three are common characteristics, being excessively general they are not cultivated; hence it says "violates reasoning". Another explanation: Because they are of that kind, because they are bound to that, in principle they should not arise either; hence it says "violates correct reasoning". Therefore Nyāyānusāra 20 says: "This rescue is unreasonable. Attentions cultivated that are bound to applied preparation are not induced to become present after attaining the fruit, because they are of that kind." Among the three theories in this treatise, the first master is correct, as it corresponds to the doctrine of the evaluator in Mahāvibhāṣā 11. The second master's doctrine, based on entering by common [characteristics] and emerging by three in the path of seeing, may also be considered correct; however, in the path of cultivation and the path of the aśaikṣa, it says only entering by common [characteristics] and emerging by three, so it is also not good. However, this text of the treatise merely refutes the third master's [view that] one emerges solely by common characteristics.