俱舍論記 9.143

9.143

「餘復釋言至染濁作意」者，此是經部中室利羅多解。此名執勝，《正理》呼為上坐。非理作意為無明因，在觸支攝，故餘經說前六處位，眼、色為緣生癡所生染濁作意。前念六處位癡是能生，後念觸位染濁作意是所生，故言生癡所生染濁作意。引此經意，證非理作意說在觸時。此觸時非理作意為因，於後受位必引無明，此即正顯無明有因所以得知。故餘經言：由無明觸，顯觸時有非理作意，所生諸受為緣生愛，復顯受位必有無明。引此經意，證無明從非理作意生，即總結言：是故前念觸時非理作意，與後念受俱轉無明為緣。由此無明無無因過，以從非理作意生故。亦不須立餘緣起支，非理作意觸時攝故。「又緣起」下，復顯非理作意從無明生，無無窮失。經中既說染濁作意從癡所生，明知非理作意從無明生。前引此經證非理作意說在觸時，今引此經證非理作意從無明生。雖同引一經，證意各別。

Regarding "Another further explains: [...] defiled attention": this is the explanation of Śrīlāta of the Sautrāntika school. This name means "holding the superior"; the *Nyāyānusāra* calls him the Sthavira. Inappropriate attention is the cause of ignorance and is subsumed under the link of contact; hence another sūtra states that at the stage of the previous six sense-bases, conditioned by eye and forms, there arises defiled attention produced by delusion. The delusion at the previous moment of the six sense-bases is the producer, and the defiled attention at the subsequent moment of contact is what is produced; hence it says "defiled attention produced by arisen delusion." Citing the intent of this sūtra proves that inappropriate attention is spoken of at the time of contact. Taking this inappropriate attention at the time of contact as a cause, at the subsequent stage of feeling it will certainly induce ignorance; this directly manifests that ignorance has a cause and why this is known. Thus another sūtra states: conditioned by feeling born of contact with ignorance—showing that at the time of contact there is inappropriate attention—craving arises, further showing that at the stage of feeling there must be ignorance. Citing the intent of this sūtra proves that ignorance arises from inappropriate attention, concluding: therefore, inappropriate attention at the previous moment of contact serves as a condition for ignorance occurring simultaneously with the subsequent moment of feeling. Because of this, ignorance does not have the fault of lacking a cause, since it arises from inappropriate attention. Nor is it necessary to establish other links of dependent origination, because inappropriate attention is subsumed at the time of contact. Under "Moreover, dependent origination...", it further manifests that inappropriate attention arises from ignorance, so there is no fault of infinite regress. Since the sūtra already states that defiled attention is produced from delusion, one clearly knows that inappropriate attention arises from ignorance. Previously, this sūtra was cited to prove that inappropriate attention is spoken of at the time of contact; now, this sūtra is cited to prove that inappropriate attention arises from ignorance. Although citing the same sūtra, the points being proven are distinct.