俱舍論記 4.119

4.119

「謂此心品至貪煩惱等」者，答。謂此心品唯有無明，無有所餘貪等本惑、忿等小惑及惡作等，故名不共，自力起故。若作斯解，不共無明唯見所斷。若貪等、忿等惡作相應無明，皆是相應，不名不共，他力起故。若依《正理論》意解不共無明，不與貪等本惑相應名不共，即是獨頭無明。及忿等、惡作相應無明，皆名不共。若作斯解，不共無明通見、修斷。故《正理》第十一云「是故惡作是不善者，唯無明俱，容在不共，忿等亦爾。」若依《正理》解不共，不共無明容有二十一法俱生。又《婆沙》三十八解不共無明，具有兩解。一解：意不與貪、等忿等相應，自力而起名不共。唯見所斷，以修所斷忿等相應，非自力起故，不名不共。第二師解：意不與貪等本惑相應，皆名不共，應知即是忿等相應及獨頭起。若作斯解，通見、修斷。此論同《婆沙》前師，《正理》同《婆沙》後說。各據一義釋不共名，竝無違害。應知諸論說不共無明，若說唯見所斷，據前師說；若言通見、修所斷者，據後師說。

"It means in this mental category [...] defilements such as greed" is the answer. That is to say, this mental category has only ignorance, with no other fundamental defilements such as greed, secondary defilements such as anger (krodha), or remorse; hence it is called "unassociated" (āveṇika) because it arises by its own power. Under this interpretation, unassociated ignorance is abandoned only by seeing [the truths] (darśana-heya). Ignorance associated with greed and the like, or with anger and remorse, is in all cases associated and is not called unassociated, because it arises by the power of others. If we interpret unassociated ignorance according to the meaning of the Nyāyānusāra, that which is not associated with the fundamental defilements such as greed is called unassociated—namely, solitary ignorance; and ignorance associated with anger and the like, or with remorse, is likewise called unassociated. Under this interpretation, unassociated ignorance pervades what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya). Hence the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle eleven, states: "Therefore, when remorse is unwholesome, it is accompanied only by ignorance, and it is admissible within the unassociated; anger and the like are also like this." If one explains "unassociated" according to the Nyāyānusāra, unassociated ignorance can co-arise with twenty-one factors. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle thirty-eight, explains unassociated ignorance with two interpretations. The first interpretation: the intention is that what does not associate with greed, anger, and the like, and arises by its own power, is called unassociated. It is abandoned only by seeing, because being associated with anger and the like which are abandoned by cultivation, it does not arise by its own power and hence is not called unassociated. The second master's interpretation: the intention is that whatever is not associated with the fundamental defilements such as greed is in all cases called unassociated; one should know that this refers to what is associated with anger and the like, as well as what arises solitarily. Under this interpretation, it pervades what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation. This treatise agrees with the former master of the Mahāvibhāṣā, whereas the Nyāyānusāra agrees with the latter teaching of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Each relies on one meaning to explain the name "unassociated," and there is no contradiction between them. One should know that when treatises speak of unassociated ignorance, if they say it is abandoned only by seeing, they rely on the former master's statement; if they say it pervades what is abandoned by seeing and cultivation, they rely on the latter master's statement.