瑜伽師地論略纂 9.67

9.67

論云「此永斷故，若先已離欲界貪者，彼於今時既入如是諦現觀已，得不還果。彼與前說離欲者相，當知無異等，乃至不復還來生此世間」者，此中據先用世間道伏離欲界欲，今入見道時成不還果，即超越不還之人。今且據離欲界不還，不論乃至先離無所有處人。此廣諍，《對法》第十三卷抄會。前卷未說世間離欲者相：威儀寂靜，言說敦肅，而無懆動等。今此與彼相似，故言「當知無異」等。又雖相似，少有差別，謂不還人不還生欲界，即於彼入涅槃，世間離欲者不然，故有差別也。

Where the treatise says, "Because this is permanently severed, if one had previously already become detached from the desire of the desire realm, when one now enters into such direct realization of the truths, one attains the fruit of non-returner. One should know that one has no difference from the signs of one who is detached from desire as previously explained, and so forth, up to: one does not return to be born in this world again": here, it is based on one who previously used the mundane path to subdue and depart from desire in the desire realm, and now, when entering the path of seeing, achieves the fruit of non-returner—that is, a person who is a 'skipping non-returner'. For now it is only based on the non-returner detached from the desire realm, without discussing those up to having previously detached from the sphere of nothingness. This is debated at length and harmonised in the commentary to the thirteenth fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-bhāṣya]. The previous fascicle did not explain the signs of one who has mundanely detached from desire: deportment being tranquil, speech being dignified and reverent, without agitation, and so forth. Now this resembles that, and therefore it says, "one should know that one has no difference," and so forth. Furthermore, although they resemble each other, there is a slight difference: namely, the non-returner does not return to be born in the desire realm and enters nirvāṇa right there, whereas the person who has mundanely detached from desire does not do so; hence there is a difference.