俱舍論疏 17.150

17.150

論「俱違前二至二說差別」，釋第三也。隨二師所說，違前二者，名為第三。《正理》云「若依世俗，後亦可然。若就勝義，前說為善。謂唯善業名為應作，唯諸染業名不應作。無覆無記身、語、意業，名非應作非不應作。然非一切不應作業皆惡行攝，唯有不善是惡性故，得惡行名。以招愛果名為妙行，招非愛果名為惡行。有覆無記雖是不應作，而非惡行攝，由此所行決定不能招愛、非愛果故。」

[On] the treatise's: "What violates both preceding... the distinction between the two explanations": this explains the third. In accordance with what the two masters have stated, what violates both preceding is called the third. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "If relying on the worldly, the latter is also acceptable. If from the ultimate standpoint, the former explanation is superior. Namely, only wholesome karma is called 'what should be done', and only defiled karmas are called 'what should not be done'. Non-veiled indeterminate bodily, vocal, and mental karmas are called 'neither what should be done nor what should not be done'. However, not all karma that should not be done is subsumed under bad conduct (duścarita); only the unwholesome, because it is of bad nature, receives the name 'bad conduct'. Because it incurs agreeable fruits, it is called good conduct (sucarita); because it incurs disagreeable fruits, it is called bad conduct. Although veiled-indeterminate is what should not be done, it is not subsumed under bad conduct, because what is practiced by it is definitively incapable of incurring agreeable or disagreeable fruits."