俱舍論記 2.19

2.19

On the passage, "If so, the uncontaminated should be exclusively neutral": the author of the treatise endorses the previous explanation, and therefore poses an objection to refute this latter school. If you say that not declaring maturation is the meaning of neutral, then since the uncontaminated cannot declare a fruit of maturation, it should be exclusively neutral. If you say that the conditioned uncontaminated also has maturation, taking analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as its fruit—with eternal and impermanent being the difference, and attainment being called maturation—this too is incorrect. The conditioned uncontaminated might allow this explanation; but since unconditioned analytical cessation has no fruit whatsoever, how could it be called wholesome? If you say that as an efficient cause (kāraṇa-hetu) it has an overarching fruit (adhipati-phala), that contradicts your own school's tenets. Even granting that it does not hinder the acquisition of an overarching fruit, in principle that is also incorrect: neutral phenomena also do not hinder the acquisition of an overarching fruit, so they ought to be called determinate. If you say that analytical cessation is said to be wholesome because its entity is praiseworthy, then that is identical to the previous explanation, making this restatement redundant.