俱舍論記 5.98

5.98

「有說此證至是有為攝」者，有經部師說：此證理不應然。述自解云：彼說滅定全無有心，由前定心能遮礙故，與後餘心相違而起。由此定前心起故，唯令後起餘心暫時不轉。此定前心又能引發違心所依身令相續起，故唯心不轉位假立為定，但是心無，無別實體。恐伏難言：依無而立，如何滅定是有為攝？為通此難故作是言：此唯不轉分位假立，入定前位無、出定後位無，似有生滅，故假說此是有為攝。

On [the text reading]: "Some say that this proof ... is included in the conditioned": A Sautrāntika master says: The reasoning of this proof is not acceptable. Stating his own explanation, he says: They say that the absorption of cessation is entirely devoid of mind; because the preceding mind of the absorption can obstruct, it arises in opposition to subsequent remaining minds. Because this mind preceding the absorption arises, it merely causes subsequent remaining minds temporarily not to operate. This mind preceding the absorption can also induce the physical basis that opposes mind to arise in continuation; therefore, merely the state wherein mind does not operate is nominally designated as an absorption, but it is merely the absence of mind, lacking a separate substantial entity. Fearing a hidden objection saying: "If it is established based on non-existence, how can the absorption of cessation be included in the conditioned?" In order to resolve this difficulty, he makes this statement: This is nominally established merely as a state of non-operation; it does not exist in the state prior to entering the absorption, nor does it exist in the state after emerging from the absorption, thus seeming to have arising and cessation; therefore it is nominally said to be included in the conditioned.