瑜伽師地論略纂 8.174

8.174

論解梵行中云「斷梵行者，謂諸聖者得不還果」等者，此中何故不明初二果？又前第二梵行，何故不論離色、無色欲？義曰：不言初二果，以離欲界全分欲為論，對暫時斷梵行成，暫時梵行唯言欲界故。又何故前第二中不言色界等欲者，此影顯准知。如阿羅漢及不還果，當知世間道亦對為論，應言離有色、無色欲，此影顯義無違。　言「畢竟」者，以無漏道斷種，故言畢竟，非無學果名畢竟。

In explaining the practice of celibacy, the treatise says: "Severed practice of celibacy refers to the noble ones who have attained the fruit of non-returner," and so forth. Why does it not clarify the first two fruits here? Furthermore, why does the second practice of celibacy above not discuss detachment from the desire of the form and formless realms? The meaning is: it does not speak of the first two fruits because the discussion is in terms of detaching from the entirety of desire in the desire realm, established in contrast to the temporary severed practice of celibacy, since temporary celibacy speaks only of the desire realm. Furthermore, why does the second above not speak of desire in the form realm and so forth? This should be understood by inference from what is implicitly shown. Just as with the arhat and the fruit of non-returner, one should know that the worldly path is also discussed in contrast; it should be said that they are detached from the desire of the form and formless realms, and this implicitly shown meaning does not conflict. The word "ultimate" means that the seeds are severed by the undefiled path, which is why it says "ultimate"; it does not mean that only the fruit of non-learning is called ultimate.