俱舍論記 1.26

1.26

第四明斷分位者，此不染無知，若菩薩三無數劫隨位漸斷，至金剛喻定方總斷過。若二乘等雖有分斷，而非斷過。應知此中所言斷者，畢竟不生得非擇滅，名之為斷，非據擇滅。若據擇滅，三乘同斷即無差別。問：菩薩斷不染無知，得非擇滅，於何位得？解云：至金剛喻定方總斷盡，得非擇滅。問：見道所斷染污無知，增上忍時定不行故，得非擇滅。不染無知，三十四念亦定不行，何故不於見道初位得非擇滅？解云：得非擇滅但據闕緣，勝緣闕時方得彼滅。至金剛喻三摩地時，不染無知勝緣方闕，故於此位得非擇滅。如現觀邊世俗智等，雖復體性畢竟不生，於前位中亦不出觀，然至三諦現觀後邊，勝緣闕故得非擇滅。故《正理論》解三現觀邊世俗智云「謂於爾時起得自在，餘緣障故，體不現前（已上論文）。」不染無知例亦可爾。見染無知增上忍位，亦勝緣闕得非擇滅，故不成例。若據西方師說，三十四念亦容出觀，即不成難。應知此論，據證不生名之為斷，且說未來。若據不成名之為斷，亦通過去。

Fourth, explaining the stages of abandonment: this non-defiled ignorance, in the case of a bodhisattva, is gradually abandoned through the stages over three incalculable eons, and only upon reaching the adamantine-like concentration (vajropamasamādhi) are its errors completely cut off. In the case of [the practitioners of] the two vehicles and so forth, although there is partial abandonment, it is not an abandonment of the errors. One should know that what is called 'abandonment' here refers to [the state where it] never arises again, obtaining cessation not through deliberation (apratisaṃkhyānirodha); this is termed 'abandonment', and is not based on cessation through deliberation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha). If it were based on cessation through deliberation, the three vehicles would abandon it alike, without difference. Question: When a bodhisattva abandons non-defiled ignorance and obtains cessation not through deliberation, at what stage is it obtained? Explanation: It is only upon reaching the adamantine-like concentration that it is entirely and completely abandoned, obtaining cessation not through deliberation. Question: Defiled ignorance abandoned by the path of seeing definitely does not operate during the highest stage of receptivity (adhimātra-kṣānti), and therefore obtains cessation not through deliberation. Non-defiled ignorance also definitely does not operate during the thirty-four moments of thought; why then is cessation not through deliberation not obtained at the initial stage of the path of seeing? Explanation: Obtaining cessation not through deliberation is based solely on the absence of conditions; it is only when superior conditions are lacking that that cessation is obtained. It is only when reaching the adamantine-like samādhi that the superior conditions for non-defiled ignorance are finally lacking; hence at this stage cessation not through deliberation is obtained. Just as conventional knowledge at the periphery of direct comprehension (abhisamayāntika-saṃvṛtijñāna) and the like, though its essence never arises again and one does not emerge from meditative absorption during the preceding stages, nevertheless, at the subsequent periphery of the direct comprehension of the three truths, because superior conditions are lacking, obtains cessation not through deliberation. Thus the Nyāyānusāra explains conventional knowledge at the periphery of the three direct comprehensions: 'That is to say, at that time one attains mastery over its arising, but because other conditions obstruct it, its essence does not present itself' (end of treatise quotation). The case of non-defiled ignorance may be treated similarly. For defiled ignorance abandoned by seeing, at the stage of the highest receptivity superior conditions are also lacking, so it obtains cessation not through deliberation; thus this does not constitute a parallel. If one relies on the explanation of the Western Masters that during the thirty-four moments of thought one may also emerge from contemplation, then this objection does not arise at all. One should know that this treatise, in speaking of 'abandonment' based on realizing non-arising, is provisionally speaking of the future. If based on non-possession (aprāpti) as abandonment, it also applies to the past.