俱舍論疏 13.103

13.103

論「若依此理至有何相雜」，譬喻師救。非漏依故名為無漏，不依此理說為有漏。非對治漏名為有漏，不依此理說為無漏。依此義說，有何相雜？

On the treatise's statement, "If in accordance with this rationale ... what mutual confusion is there?": the Dārṣṭāntika defends. Because they are not bases for the pollutions, they are called unpolluted, but they are not said to be polluted on this rationale. Because they are not antidotes to the pollutions, they are called polluted, but they are not said to be unpolluted on this rationale. Stated according to these meanings, what mutual confusion is there?