Abhidharmakosabhasyam, Volume IV

In the thesis presented above (p. 1099, line 23) that all minds
"united with craving" (rdgasamyukta) "possess craving" (sardga),
what is the meaning of the expression rdgasamyukta, united with
craving?
1. If a mind is united with craving, and as a consequence
possesses craving, because the possession of craving continues in
the series in which this mind is produced, then the mind of an
imperfect saint or Saiksa, even when it is pure, will be termed
"possessing craving", since the craving has not been completely
expelled from the series of the Saiksa. 72
2. If a mind is both united with craving and possesses craving
through the fact of being the object (dlambana) of the "active
craving" 73 , then the impure mind of an Arhat will possess craving,
since this mind can be the object of the craving of another
person. 74
If you do not admit that the mind of an Arhat can be grasped as
an object through the craving of another person, how can this
mind be termed impure?
Would you say that it is impure, not because it is the object of
the craving of another, but because it is the object of a "general
defilement" (sdmdnyaklesa, v. 12, namely of ignorance or delusion)
of another? In this hypothesis, do not say that this mind is sardga,
that it "possesses craving"; say rather that it is samoha, that it
"possesses moha," since it is the object of the moha or ignorance of
another.
But, we would say, none of these proposed explanations is
valid. In fact the knowledge of the mind of another does not bear
on the "possessions" which can be found in the series of another.
Consequently when I know that the mind of another person
possesses craving, this mind of another does not possess craving
because it is "united with craving" in the sense that it is
accompanied by the possession of craving, or in the sense that it is
found in the series in which this possession has not been expelled.
The knowledge of the mind of another no longer knows the
craving which would be the object of the mind of another.