俱舍論疏 4.250

4.250

論「有說不獲至彼非得故」，敘異說也。謂不得三乘苦法智忍及俱生法，名異生性。文外伏難。難云：若爾，至道類智捨前向故，捨苦忍等，爾時亦名不得苦忍，應名異生。由遮此難故，言前已永害彼非得故。謂前不獲一切苦忍名異生性，此之非得已被永害入於過去，至道類智時更起非得，非是未曾得苦法忍，故非異生。

[On the] Śāstra['s statement]: "Some say not acquiring … because their non-possession [has already been severed]": This relates an alternative explanation. It means that not obtaining the three vehicles' receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering and their co-arising dharmas is called ordinary-person-nature. There is an implicit objection outside the text. The objection says: 'If so, when reaching the cognition of the category of the path, because one abandons the preceding path of practice, one abandons the receptivity to suffering, etc.; at that time one is also said to not obtain the receptivity to suffering, so one should be called an ordinary person.' To refute this objection, it says: 'Because their non-possession has already been permanently destroyed beforehand.' That is, previously not acquiring any receptivity to suffering was called ordinary-person-nature; this non-possession has already been permanently destroyed and entered the past. When reaching the cognition of the category of the path, non-possession arises anew; it is not that one has never obtained the receptivity to the doctrine of suffering, and hence one is not an ordinary person.