俱舍論疏 6.135

6.135

論「聖者身中至為遍行因」，問也。有學聖人遍惑已斷，豈亦用此已斷之法為修惑因？若亦為因，斷與不斷有何差別？

The treatise says: "In the stream of being of a noble one, [...] does it serve as a universal cause?" This is a question. If a noble learner (śaikṣa) has already severed the universal afflictions, does he still use these severed phenomena as causes for the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanāheya)? If they still serve as causes, what difference is there between being severed and unsevered?