俱舍論記 5.93

5.93

「若謂如經至諸心皆滅」者，妙音牒世友救破。若謂經說「受為緣故生愛」，自有阿羅漢受而不生愛。觸亦應爾，非一切觸皆受等緣，何妨滅定中觸而不生受者。此例不然。觸、受兩緣有差別故、經自簡言「若異生、學人，無明觸所生諸受為緣生愛」，明知非是無明觸所生諸受即不生愛。曾無有處簡觸生受，故知諸觸皆能生受，故有差別。由此道理，毘婆沙師說滅定中諸心皆滅。

On [the text reading]: "If it is claimed that just as the sūtra [says] ... all minds cease": Ghoṣaka takes up Vasumitra's defense and refutes it. If one claims that the sūtra says, "Conditioned by sensation, craving arises," yet an arhat naturally has sensation without craving arising; contact should also be like this—not all contact is a condition for sensation and the like—so what prevents there being contact in the absorption of cessation without producing sensation? This analogy is not correct. Because there is a distinction between the two conditions of contact and sensation: the sūtra itself distinguishes, saying, "If one is an ordinary person or a trainee, sensations produced by contact with ignorance serve as conditions to generate craving," which clearly shows that sensations that are not produced by contact with ignorance do not generate craving. There has never been any passage distinguishing contact that produces sensation [from that which does not]; hence we know that all contacts are able to produce sensation, and thus there is a distinction. By this reasoning, the Vaibhāṣikas say that in the absorption of cessation, all minds cease.