俱舍論記 9.141

9.141

「有餘釋言至此契經中」者，此下敘異說，古世親解。是後世親祖師，即是《雜心》初卷子注中言和須槃豆，是說一切有部中異師。此中已破，故《正理》不非。無明既從非理作意因生，故知無始。非理作意亦取支攝，以此四取攝法寬故，不但攝諸惑，亦攝非理作意故。亦說在此十二緣起契經中，故更不立餘緣起支。或非理作意已下通伏難。伏難意云：若非理作意為無明因，十二支緣起經中何故更不別立一支？故今通言：不但諸惑是取支攝，非理作意亦取支攝，故亦說在緣起經中，更不別立。

Regarding "Another explains: [...] in this sūtra": from here on, different views are presented, being the explanation of the elder Vasubandhu. He was the ancestral teacher of the later Vasubandhu, that is, the Vasubandhu mentioned in the sub-commentary to the first fascicle of the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya*, an alternate master within the Sarvāstivāda. Since this has already been refuted here, the *Nyāyānusāra* does not criticize it. Since ignorance arises from inappropriate attention (ayoniśo-manaskāra) as its cause, we know it is beginningless. Inappropriate attention is also subsumed under the link of grasping, because these four graspings encompass dharmas broadly: not only do they subsume all afflictions, but they also subsume inappropriate attention. It is also spoken of within this sūtra on the twelvefold dependent origination, so no other links of dependent origination are established. Alternatively, the passage from "inappropriate attention" onward resolves an implicit objection. The intent of the implicit objection is: if inappropriate attention is the cause of ignorance, why is another separate link not established in the sūtra on the twelve links of dependent origination? Therefore, it is now explained: not only are all afflictions subsumed under the link of grasping, but inappropriate attention is also subsumed under the link of grasping; hence it is also spoken of in the sūtra on dependent origination, and no separate link is established.