俱舍論疏 26.5

26.5

「論曰至推度性故」，此明聖忍非智攝也。立以聖名，簡有漏忍。「自所斷疑」者，簡異部疑也。與疑得俱，故不名智。《正理論》云「或求見境意樂止息，加行奢緩說名為智。諸忍正起推度意樂，加行猛利故非智攝（已上論文）。」

Regarding 'The commentary says ... because of its deliberative nature': this explains that noble receptivities are not subsumed under knowledge. Establishing them with the designation 'noble' excludes receptivities that are defiled (with outflows). 'Doubts of what it personally abandons' excludes doubts of other classes. Because it co-occurs with the acquisition of doubt, it is not called knowledge. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'Or, when the inclination to seek observation of an object has ceased, and the preparatory application has become relaxed, it is called knowledge. Receptivities are just arising with an inclination toward deliberation, and their preparatory application is intense; hence they are not subsumed under knowledge' (thus ends the treatise text).