俱舍論疏 20.166

20.166

論「同無記性至名有漏義」，答也。三因故合說，一同無記性故、二同內門轉故、三同依定地生故。又指前〈隨眠品〉初釋有貪名，則是此中名有漏義。《正理》破云「彼界煩惱亦於外門，有緣色、聲、觸境轉故。謂此應言：何緣合說二界煩惱為一有漏？同無記故，同對治故，同定地故合一。」俱舍師救云：雖彼上界亦外門轉，言內門約多分說。如言色界，豈無受等？

Regarding the treatise's statement from "Sharing the nature of being indeterminate" to "the meaning of outpourings of existence": This is the answer. They are combined and explained as one due to three causes: first, because they share the nature of being indeterminate; second, because they both function within the internal sphere; third, because they both arise supported by meditative states. Furthermore, it refers back to the explanation of the name "attachment to existence" (bhavarāga) at the beginning of the Chapter on Anuśayas, which is precisely the meaning of "outpourings of existence" here. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying: "The defilements of those realms also function in external spheres, having aspects that take visible forms, sounds, and tangible objects as their objective fields. Therefore one should say: For what reason are the defilements of the two realms combined and spoken of as a single outpouring of existence? Because they share indeterminateness, because they share the same antidote, and because they belong to meditative states, they are combined as one." The Kośa master defends it: Although those upper realms also function in external spheres, speaking of them as the internal sphere is based on the majority. Just as when one speaks of the form realm, how could it lack sensation and so forth?