俱舍論記 8.117

8.117

「論曰至而生類等」者，生謂四生種類。諸有情中雖有種種形貌不同，餘類相雜，而由四生種類各等。又《婆沙》一百二十云「問：如是四生以何為自性？答：四蘊、五蘊以為自性，謂欲、色界五蘊，無色界四蘊。此中有說唯異熟蘊以為自性，有說亦通長養，是名四生自性。《婆沙》二說，前說為正。以四生、五趣相攝中，云四生攝五趣，非五趣攝四生。不攝者何？所謂中有。若不爾者，應更說言不攝長養。若言五趣亦通長養無斯過者，此救不然，《婆沙》正義，五趣體性唯是異熟。

Regarding "The commentary says [...] yet their classes of birth are equal": "birth" (yoni) refers to the categories of the four births. Although among sentient beings there are various differences in bodily appearance, and other classes are commingled, yet by virtue of the four births, their categories are each equal. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred twenty, states: "Question: What is the intrinsic nature of these four births? Answer: The four skandhas and the five skandhas are their intrinsic nature; that is, the five skandhas of the desire and form realms, and the four skandhas of the formless realm. Herein, some say that only the skandhas of maturation (vipāka) are their intrinsic nature; others say that they also include nourished [skandhas] (aupacayika). Such is the intrinsic nature of the four births." Between the two explanations in the Mahāvibhāṣā, the former is correct. Because in the mutual subsumption between the four births and the five destinies, it is said that the four births subsume the five destinies, but the five destinies do not subsume the four births. What is not subsumed? The so-called intermediate existence (antarābhava). If it were not so, it should have further stated that nourished [skandhas] are not subsumed. If one says that the five destinies also include nourished [skandhas] and thus there is no such flaw, this defense is incorrect; according to the orthodox view of the Mahāvibhāṣā, the intrinsic nature of the five destinies is strictly maturation.