俱舍論疏 4.91

4.91

論「謂失念至及邪勝解」，廣答意旨，如文可解。問：失念、不正知、邪勝解、心亂及非理作意，何故本論說此五法而許通入大煩惱地，受等五法而不入耶？答：仰測論意，由此五法於善品中所起業用順自名體；於染分中所起業用違自名體故，染位名失念、不正知、邪勝解、心亂、非理作意等相違名也。受、想、思、觸、欲，於染、淨位中所起業用不失本名，故不重說。論主將為有過，不勞廣釋。

The treatise says: "It refers to loss of mindfulness... and wrong resolve." This extensively answers the intention, which can be understood from the text. Question: Why did the fundamental treatise speak of these five dharmas—loss of mindfulness, incorrect knowledge, wrong resolve, mental distraction, and inappropriate mental application—and allow them to be commonly subsumed into the great defilement ground, while the five dharmas such as feeling do not enter? Answer: Respectfully inferring the treatise's intention: because the functions these five dharmas produce in the wholesome category conform to their own names and intrinsic natures, whereas the functions they produce in the defiled category conflict with their own names and intrinsic natures, therefore in the defiled state they are given conflicting names such as loss of mindfulness, incorrect knowledge, wrong resolve, mental distraction, and inappropriate mental application. Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and desire do not lose their original names in their functions produced in defiled and purified states; hence they are not restated. The author of the treatise considered this to have faults, so there is no need to explain it at length.