俱舍論記 8.70

8.70

「毘婆沙師至亦通長養」者，結歸本宗。此中兩師，前說為正。故《婆沙》一百七十二云「問：已知趣體唯是無覆無記，於中為但是異熟？為通長養？若但是異熟者，《品類足》說當云何通？如說五趣攝五蘊、十二處、十八界。若通長養者，則趣體雜亂，以人趣中亦引起色界長養諸根大種故。答：應說趣體唯是異熟。問：《品類足》說當云何通？答：彼文應說五趣攝五蘊、十一處、十七界少分。而不作是說者，當知是誦者錯謬。有說：彼論通五趣眷屬，感五趣業及能防護，非唯說趣，是故無過。然由煩惱界有差別，由異熟蘊趣有差別，是故趣體唯是異熟。」

"The Vaibhāṣikas ... also include the nurtured" concludes by returning to the primary tenets [of the school]. Between these two masters, the earlier explanation is the correct one. Thus the Vibhāṣā (fascicle 172) says: 'Question: Having understood that the essential nature of the destinies is solely morally neutral without obstruction, within that, is it exclusively retribution, or does it also include the nurtured? If it is exclusively retribution, how is the statement of the Prakaraṇapāda to be resolved? As it says, the five destinies subsume the five skandhas, the twelve āyatanas, and the eighteen dhātus. If it includes the nurtured, then the essential nature of the destinies would be confounded, because within the human destiny there are also the nurtured sense-faculties and great elements originating from the form realm. Answer: It should be stated that the essential nature of the destinies is exclusively retribution. Question: How is the statement of the Prakaraṇapāda to be resolved? Answer: That text should have said that the five destinies subsume a fraction of the five skandhas, eleven āyatanas, and seventeen dhātus. That it did not speak thus should be known as an error of the reciters. Some say: That treatise includes the retinues of the five destinies, the karma that induces the five destinies, and that which can protect them; it is not speaking solely of the destinies [themselves], and therefore there is no fault. However, the realms differ on account of defilements, and the destinies differ on account of the retribution skandhas; therefore, the essential nature of the destinies is exclusively retribution.'