俱舍論記 28.192

28.192

「無願無願至為厭捨故」者，明無願無願等持。無願無願緣前無學無願等持取非常相，不取苦因、集、生、緣，非無漏相故。聖道非苦，不取苦相。聖道不能招三有故，不取因、集、生、緣四相。不取道、如、行、出，為厭捨故。以彼道等是欣觀故，若緣道等應欣聖道、不應厭背，故十相中但取非常。又《顯宗》云「無願無願緣前無學無願等持取非常相，謂彼先起無學等持，於五取蘊中思惟非常相，從此後起殊勝善根相應等持，緣前無學無願三摩地思惟非常相，於無願不願名無願無願。舉喻顯示，如前應知。重無願等持，非常行相後起，即復還與非常行相相應，唯此可能緣厭道故。非苦行相能緣聖道，聖道非苦趣苦滅故，苦法不能趣苦寂滅。亦非因等四能緣聖道，以聖道不能令苦續故。非道等四者，此厭捨道故，非欣行相能為厭捨。豈不如無願不願聖道而作道等四？此亦應然，此例不然，無願正厭有，兼於聖道起不願心故。謂前無願正厭於有，聖道依有故兼不願。雖望意樂說不願道，而於聖道非正憎厭，故亦能作道等四種。無願無願正憎厭道，故以非常觀道過失。道等行相無容厭道，是故於此不作彼四。

"Wishlessness of wishlessness […] for the sake of revulsion and abandonment" explains the wishlessness-of-wishlessness concentration. Wishlessness of wishlessness takes the preceding aśaikṣa wishless concentration as object and grasps the aspect of impermanence; it does not grasp suffering, cause, origin, arising, or condition, because they are not aspects of the uncontaminated. The noble path is not suffering, so it does not grasp the aspect of suffering. The noble path cannot attract the three realms of existence, so it does not grasp the four aspects of cause, origin, arising, and condition. It does not grasp the path, correctness, attainment, and deliverance, because it is for the sake of revulsion and abandonment. Since path and so on are joyful contemplations, if it took path and so on as objects, it would rejoice in the noble path and not turn away from it in revulsion; therefore among the ten aspects it grasps only impermanence. Furthermore, the Samayapradīpikā says: "Wishlessness of wishlessness takes the preceding aśaikṣa wishless concentration as object and grasps the aspect of impermanence: that is, one first gives rise to an aśaikṣa concentration and contemplates the aspect of impermanence within the five clinging-aggregates; subsequent to this, one gives rise to a concentration associated with superior wholesome roots, which takes the preceding aśaikṣa wishless samādhi as object and contemplates the aspect of impermanence: not wishing for the wishless is called 'wishlessness of wishlessness'. The illustrative analogy should be known as before. In the double wishless concentration, arising after the aspect of impermanence, it in turn is associated with the aspect of impermanence, for only this can loathe the path by taking it as an object. The aspect of suffering cannot take the noble path as an object, because the noble path is not suffering and proceeds toward the cessation of suffering, whereas a dharma of suffering cannot proceed toward the pacification of suffering. Nor can the four of cause, etc., take the noble path as an object, because the noble path cannot cause suffering to continue. Nor the four of path, etc., because this [concentration] loathes and abandons the path, and joyful aspects cannot effect revulsion and abandonment. Would it not be that just as wishlessness does not wish for the noble path yet adopts the four of path, etc., this [double wishlessness] should also be so? This parallel does not hold: wishlessness directly loathes existence, and only incidentally gives rise to a mind of not wishing for the noble path. That is, the preceding wishlessness directly loathes existence, and because the noble path depends on existence, it incidentally does not wish for it. Although spoken of as not wishing for the path in terms of intention, it does not directly loathe the noble path, and therefore can also adopt the four kinds such as the path. Wishlessness of wishlessness directly loathes the path; therefore it contemplates the faults of the path by means of impermanence. The aspects of path, etc., do not admit of loathing the path; therefore here it does not adopt those four."