俱舍論記 5.91

5.91

「尊者世友至故無此失」者，經部異師尊者世友所造問論中說：若執滅定如前二說全無有心，可有此無心生有心過；我說滅定猶有細心生出定心，故無此失。世友，梵名云伐蘇蜜多羅，舊云和須蜜，訛也。印度國名世友者非一，非是婆沙會中世友。又《正理》第十三云「譬喻論者作如是言：滅盡定中唯滅受、想，以定無有無心有情。」解云：此敘鳩摩羅多門徒釋。彼宗所執，唯一心王，隨用差別立種種名。無別心所，但心緣境第一剎那初了名識，第二剎那取像名想，第三剎那領納名受，第四已去造作名思，諸餘心所皆思差別。識、想、受三唯無記性，思心已去方始通三。入滅定者滅想受心，由此二麁是所厭故。識雖非厭，定中亦不得起，是無記故。於行位中思之差別為滅定體，以實言之即是心，就用言之是心所。故彼定中必有心體，但無受、想之位。何以知然？名稱滅受想定，故知無受、想。必定無有無心有情，既是有情，故知心有。又《婆沙》一百五十三云「謂譬喻者分別論師執滅盡定細心不滅。彼說無有有情而無色者，亦無有定而無心者。若定無心，命根應斷，便名為死，非謂在定。」准此論，世友同彼譬喻分別論計。

On [the text reading]: "Venerable Vasumitra ... therefore there is no such fault": In the treatise of inquiry composed by the venerable Vasumitra, a different master of the Sautrāntikas, it is said: If one holds that in the absorption of cessation, as in the two preceding theories, there is no mind at all, then there could be this fault of that which has mind being produced from that which is mindless; I say that in the absorption of cessation there still remains a subtle mind that produces the emerging mind, and therefore there is no such fault. Vasumitra's Sanskrit name is Vasumitra; the old rendering was Hesumi, which is corrupt. In India there was more than one person named Vasumitra; he is not the Vasumitra in the Mahāvibhāṣā assembly. Furthermore, fascicle 13 of the Nyāyānusāra states: "The Dārṣṭāntikas speak thus: In the absorption of cessation, only sensation and ideation are ceased, because there is definitely no sentient being without mind." Explanation: This recounts the interpretation of Kumāralāta's disciples. What that school maintains is that there is only a single sovereign mind, and according to differences in function various names are established. There are no separate mental factors: it is just mind taking an object, which in the first moment upon initial cognition is called consciousness; in the second moment, grasping the mark is called ideation; in the third moment, experiencing is called sensation; from the fourth [moment] onward, volition is called intention; all remaining mental factors are differentiations of intention. Consciousness, ideation, and sensation are purely morally indeterminate; only from the mind of intention onward does it begin to encompass the three [moral natures]. One who enters the absorption of cessation extinguishes the mind of ideation and sensation, because these two are coarse and are the objects of loathing. Although consciousness is not loathed, it also cannot arise during the absorption, because it is indeterminate. During the stage of mental formations, the differentiation of intention constitutes the substance of the absorption of cessation; speaking in terms of reality it is mind, while speaking in terms of function it is a mental factor. Therefore, in that absorption there must be the substance of mind, but merely the state devoid of sensation and ideation. How is this known? The name is called 'the absorption of the cessation of sensation and ideation', hence we know it lacks sensation and ideation. There is definitely no sentient being without mind; since one is a sentient being, we therefore know that mind exists. Furthermore, fascicle 153 of the Mahāvibhāṣā states: "The Dārṣṭāntika Vibhajyavādins maintain that the subtle mind does not cease in the absorption of cessation. They say that there is no sentient being without matter, nor is there any absorption without mind. If the absorption were without mind, the life faculty should be severed, which would be called death, not being in absorption." In accordance with this treatise, Vasumitra agrees with the doctrine of those Dārṣṭāntika-Vibhajyavādins.