俱舍論疏 26.63

26.63

On the Śāstra's statement: "This is not logical […] the knowledge of the path": the Sarvāstivādins refute the explanation of the Western masters. First, they refute it by reason; second, they refute it by contradiction with the fundamental treatise. All defiled minds, because they are associated with sleepiness, would be called collected minds; but because they are defiled, they should be called distracted minds. This incurs the fault that a single mind has two states of mind, which contradicts reason. If one maintains that a collected mind is that which is associated with sleepiness, it would therefore be solely a tainted mind of the desire realm, which directly contradicts the fundamental treatise['s statement] that it is known by the two knowledges—subsequent knowledge and the knowledge of the path. This is because subsequent knowledge knows the higher realms, and the knowledge of the path knows the untainted path. (The above is the fourth pair.)