俱舍論疏 4.241

4.241

「論曰至無記性攝」，第一、三性門也。故《婆沙》一百五十八云「問：非得隨何性類差別？答：彼定不隨所不得法，以相違故。又不隨道，非道所求但依命根、眾同分轉故。隨所依性類差別。問：若諸非得、非擇滅得俱隨所依性類別者，所依或異熟、或唯等流，此二隨何性類差別？答：隨等流性，以義遍故。異熟非遍，故不隨立。問：非得若隨所不得法性類差別，有何過耶？答：斷善根者應成就善，已離欲染者應成就不善，諸無學者應成就染，異生應成三乘無漏法，退果應成果，捨向應成向，二滅非得應是無為。由此等過，非得不可隨所不得。」

[On the statement:] "The commentary says: [… it is subsumed under the neutral nature]," this is the first section, the gate of the three moral natures. Thus the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 158, states: "Question: According to the categories of which moral nature does non-possession vary? Answer: It definitely does not vary according to the state not acquired, because of mutual opposition. Furthermore, it does not vary according to the Path, because it is not sought by the Path, but merely evolves based upon the life-faculty and the group-homogeneity. It varies according to the categories of nature of its basis. Question: If non-possessions and the possessions of analytical cessation both vary according to the categories of nature of their basis, and the basis is either fruition-of-maturation or exclusively outflow, according to which of these two categories of nature do they vary? Answer: They vary according to the nature of outflow, because the meaning is pervasive. Fruition-of-maturation is not pervasive, and hence [the categorization] is not established according to it. Question: If non-possession varied according to the categories of nature of the state not acquired, what fault would there be? Answer: One who has severed the roots of wholesomeness would possess the wholesome; one who is already free from desire's defilement would possess the unwholesome; all those beyond training would possess defilement; ordinary beings would possess the uncontaminated states of the three vehicles; one who falls from a fruit would possess the fruit; one who abandons an approach would possess the approach; the non-possession of the two cessations would be unconditioned. Due to such faults, non-possession cannot vary according to the state not acquired."