俱舍論記 28.193

28.193

「無相無相至非離繫果故」者，明無相無相三摩地。無相無相即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境。所以不即緣前無學無相三摩地者，言無相者無十種相，彼三摩地雖無色等五相及男、女二相，是有為故，有三有為相，是故不緣。以無漏法無擇滅故，唯觀非擇滅，不緣擇滅。於非擇滅但取靜相，非滅、妙、離，恐濫非常滅故，不作滅行相。故《婆沙》一百五云「問：何故此定不作滅行相耶？答：滅有二種，一非擇滅、二無常滅。若作滅行相，則不知緣何滅。問：若爾，亦應非靜行相。謂靜亦有二種，一非擇滅、二擇滅。若作靜行相，則亦不知緣何靜？答：有處說二滅，無處說二靜，故不應例。復次滅義濫多，靜義濫少。謂滅有三，靜唯二故。若復不作靜行相者，此更作何行相（已上《婆沙》）？」問：緣擇滅時，亦應不作彼滅行相，濫無常滅故。解云：擇滅諦收，聖心現證，雖作滅行而無有濫，不同非擇滅。是無記性故，不作妙行相。非離繫果故，不作離行相。又《顯宗》云「無相無相即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境，以無漏法無擇滅故，但取靜相，非滅、妙、離。謂彼先起無學等持，於擇滅中思惟靜相，從此後起殊勝善根相應等持，即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境，思惟靜相。於無相滅復觀為無相，名無相無相。舉喻亦如前應知。重無相等持，靜行相後起，即復還與靜行相相應。唯此能觀非擇滅故，非妙行相。境無記故，非離行相。以雖證得，彼非擇滅。猶縛隨故，非滅行相，以非擇非永解脫一切苦故。又若觀滅，濫非常故。所言靜者，唯顯止息，故非擇滅得有靜相。以修聖道經久劬勞，於彼息中便生樂相，故重無相取靜非餘。

"From 'Signless-signless' up to 'because it is not the fruit of disjunction'" explains the signless-signless samādhi (animittānimitta-samādhi). The signless-signless directly takes as its object the cessation not through deliberation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) of the aśaikṣa signless samādhi. The reason it does not directly take the preceding aśaikṣa signless samādhi itself as an object is that what is called "signless" lacks ten kinds of signs; although that samādhi lacks the five signs of form, etc., and the two signs of male and female, because it is conditioned (saṃskṛta), it possesses the three characteristics of the conditioned, and therefore is not taken as an object. Because untainted phenomena (anāsrava-dharma) do not possess cessation through deliberation, it contemplates solely cessation not through deliberation, and does not take cessation through deliberation as an object. With respect to cessation not through deliberation, it adopts only the aspect of "calm" (śānta), not cessation (nirodha), excellence (praṇīta), or escape (niḥsaraṇa); fearing confusion with impermanent destruction, it does not adopt the aspect of cessation. Thus the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 105, states: "Question: Why does this concentration not adopt the aspect of cessation? Answer: There are two kinds of cessation: first, cessation not through deliberation; second, impermanent cessation. If it were to adopt the aspect of cessation, one would not know which cessation was being taken as the object. Question: If so, it should also not adopt the aspect of calm, for calm also has two kinds: first, cessation not through deliberation; second, cessation through deliberation. If it adopts the aspect of calm, one would likewise not know which calm is taken as the object. Answer: In some passages two cessations are spoken of, but in no passage are two calms spoken of; therefore they should not be paralleled. Furthermore, the meaning of 'cessation' is prone to much confusion, while the meaning of 'calm' is prone to little confusion; that is, cessation has three meanings, whereas calm has only two. Moreover, if it were not to adopt the aspect of calm, what other aspect could this [concentration] adopt? (The above is from the *Mahāvibhāṣā*)." Question: When taking cessation through deliberation as an object, it should likewise not adopt the aspect of cessation, because of confusion with impermanent cessation. The explanation is: Cessation through deliberation is subsumed under the [Noble] Truths and is directly realized by the noble mind; although it adopts the aspect of cessation, there is no confusion, unlike cessation not through deliberation. Because it is indeterminate (avyākṛta) by nature, it does not adopt the aspect of excellence. Because it is not the fruit of disjunction (visaṃyoga-phala), it does not adopt the aspect of escape. Furthermore, the *Xianzong lun* states: "The signless-signless directly takes as its object the cessation not through deliberation of the aśaikṣa signless samādhi. Because untainted phenomena do not possess cessation through deliberation, it takes only the aspect of calm, not cessation, excellence, or escape. That is, having first generated an aśaikṣa concentration and reflected on the aspect of calm within cessation through deliberation, after this one generates a concentration associated with superior wholesome roots, which directly takes as its object the cessation not through deliberation of the aśaikṣa signless samādhi and reflects on the aspect of calm. Again contemplating the signless cessation as signless is called 'signless-signless'. The illustration given is also to be understood as before. In the repeated signless concentration, the aspect of calm arises subsequently, and thus it again associates with the aspect of calm. Only this can contemplate cessation not through deliberation; it is not the aspect of excellence, because the object is indeterminate; it is not the aspect of escape, because although it is attained, that cessation not through deliberation is still accompanied by bondage; it is not the aspect of cessation, because what is not through deliberation does not permanently liberate one from all suffering. Furthermore, if it contemplated cessation, it would be confused with impermanence. What is called 'calm' solely indicates cessation [of activity]; therefore cessation not through deliberation can possess the aspect of calm. Because of long weariness in practicing the noble path, one comes to conceive a notion of pleasure in that resting; therefore the repeated signless takes calm and not the others."