俱舍論記 21.92

21.92

「斷未來惑至定何所從」者，難。斷未來惑，理且可然，容令於境不復生故，說之為斷。過去諸惑是已生法，不可令其不復生故，云何說斷？若謂頌說從所緣言，意顯遍知所緣故斷，非於所緣不復起故名之為斷。但知諸惑所緣之時即名斷者，此亦非理，不決定故。以斷苦、集他界遍行，及滅、道斷有漏緣惑，非是遍知所緣故斷。難訖問言：由此應說煩惱等斷定何所從？

"Abandoning future defilements... from what determinately?": An objection: Abandoning future defilements is indeed plausible in principle, for it allows that they are made not to arise again with respect to their objects; hence it is described as abandonment. Past defilements are phenomena that have already arisen; since they cannot be made not to arise again, how can they be described as abandoned? If one says that when the verse speaks of 'from cognitive objects', its intention is to indicate that abandonment occurs through comprehensive knowledge of the cognitive object, and not that it is called abandonment because they do not arise again with respect to their cognitive objects—meaning that simply when the cognitive objects of the defilements are known, they are called abandoned—this is also unreasonable, because it is not determinate. For the universal [afflictions directed toward] other realms [abandoned by seeing] suffering and origination, as well as the afflictions conditioned by the contaminated that are abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, are not abandoned through comprehensive knowledge of their cognitive objects. Having raised this objection, [the opponent] asks: Therefore, one should explain: from what determinately is the abandonment of afflictions and so forth?