俱舍論疏 19.214

19.214

論「疑二趣轉至故彼非根」，答也。以慢及疑雖有無記，亦能為因生無記法，無根相故不立為根。《正理論》曰「根相如是隱於土下，故名為根。是體下垂，上生苗義。此三如彼，故亦名根。餘非隨眠，或無勝用，故不立根。」解云：十隨眠中，無記五見即慧中攝，貪即是愛，無明即癡。疑、慢無根相，嗔不通無記，由此唯三立無記根。忿等非隨眠性，故不立根。問：若爾，無覆無記亦非隨眠性，何故立根？答：無記慧中有是隨眠性故，忿等不爾。

Regarding the treatise passage from "Doubt proceeds in two directions" to "hence they are not roots": this is the answer. Because although conceit and doubt can be indeterminate and can also serve as causes to produce indeterminate dharmas, they lack the characteristics of a root and are therefore not established as roots. The Nyāyānusāra states: "The characteristic of a root is to be hidden beneath the earth; hence it is called a root. It is of the nature of hanging downward, with the sense of producing sprouts above. These three are like that, and hence are also called roots. The others are not of the nature of anusayas, or they lack superior function, so they are not established as roots." The explanation is: Among the ten anusayas, the indeterminate five views are subsumed under prajñā, greed is just craving, and ignorance is just delusion. Doubt and conceit lack the characteristics of a root, and ill will does not extend to the indeterminate; therefore, only three are established as indeterminate roots. Anger and the like are not of the nature of anusayas, so they are not established as roots. Question: If so, unveiled indeterminate [prajñā] is also not of the nature of an anusaya; why is it established as a root? Answer: Because among indeterminate prajñās there are those that are of the nature of anusayas; anger and the like are not so.