俱舍論疏 4.229

4.229

論「又善等法至無記三得」，此三性分別也。三性法得與所得法雖定同性，然得起時所由即異。諸有為法由所得法，擇滅由道，非擇滅由命根、眾同分。《婆沙》一百五十八云「問：何故得與所得法，性類或同或異耶？答：得有三種，一有為、二擇滅、三非擇滅得。有為法得，隨所得法性類差別，以有為法能有作用引自得故。擇滅得隨能證道性類差別，以諸擇滅自無作用，但由道力求證彼時引彼得故。非擇滅得隨自所依性類差別，以非擇滅自無作用非道所求，彼得但依命根、眾同分而現前故。由此三性之法各自性得得，雖得擇滅不由所得，得非擇滅依眾同分等。道與擇滅同性，同分與非擇滅同性，由此二種雖不由所得，而與所得必定同性，由此三性必同性得。」

The Śāstra says: "Furthermore, wholesome and other dharmas […] three kinds of possession of the indeterminate." This is the distinction according to the three moral qualities. Although the possession of dharmas of the three moral qualities definitively shares the same moral quality as the dharma possessed, the causes for the arising of possession are distinct. Conditioned dharmas arise due to the dharma possessed; analytical cessation arises due to the path; non-analytical cessation arises due to the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga. Vibhāṣā 158 states: "Question: Why do possession and the dharma possessed sometimes share the same moral nature and sometimes differ? Answer: There are three kinds of possession: first, of conditioned dharmas; second, of analytical cessation; third, of non-analytical cessation. The possession of conditioned dharmas conforms to the differences in moral nature of the dharma possessed, because conditioned dharmas are capable of active function and induce their own possession. The possession of analytical cessation conforms to the differences in moral nature of the path capable of realizing it, because all analytical cessations are themselves devoid of active function and only induce that possession through the power of the path when one seeks to realize them. The possession of non-analytical cessation conforms to the differences in moral nature of its own basis, because non-analytical cessation is itself devoid of active function and is not sought by the path; its possession appears only based on the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga. For this reason, dharmas of the three moral qualities are possessed by possessions of their own intrinsic nature. Although the possession of analytical cessation is not caused by what is possessed, and the possession of non-analytical cessation relies on nikāya-sabhāga and the like, the path and analytical cessation share the same moral quality, and nikāya-sabhāga and non-analytical cessation share the same moral quality. Because of these two, even though they are not caused by what is possessed, they definitively share the same moral quality as what is possessed; hence the three moral qualities are necessarily possessed by possessions of the same moral quality."