俱舍論疏 15.105

15.105

論「有餘師言至依表得故」，第二師不得惡戒。此是正義。《正理論》取前師為正，故論云「前說應理。先受戒時，惡阿世耶非永捨故，依前表業惡戒還起。」俱舍師救云：諸論皆說得戒捨。此既得戒，寧容不捨？後不更作，如何更起？故知後說為正。今詳離前二緣，後暫作殺等，亦是處中。然正理師所釋非理。善戒處中，皆無中捨離前得緣而重得者，如何惡戒即不如是？

On the Śāstra's statement, "Other masters say... because it was acquired on the basis of an overt action": according to the second master, one does not acquire bad morality. This is the correct doctrine. The *Nyāyānusāra* takes the former master as correct; hence that treatise says: "The former statement is reasonable. When the morality was previously received, the bad intention (āśaya) was not permanently abandoned; therefore, based on the previous overt action (vijñapti-karman), the bad morality arises again." The masters of the Kośa defend this, saying: "All treatises state that it is abandoned upon acquiring morality. Since morality has here been acquired, how could it not be abandoned? If one does not perform it again later, how could it arise again? Therefore, know that the latter statement is correct." Now, considering this, apart from the two aforementioned conditions, if one subsequently performs killing or the like temporarily, that is also intermediate. Thus the explanation of the master of the Nyāyānusāra is illogical. In intermediate wholesome morality, there is no case where, having abandoned it in the middle apart from the conditions of previous acquisition, one re-acquires it; how could bad morality not be the same?