俱舍論記 7.60

7.60

「滅盡無想至非等無間緣」者，釋第二句。如是二定，由心等引生故，是心等無間果。由礙心等起故，非等無間緣。餘文可知。《婆沙》意說，二定三緣生。此言生者，起未已滅，總名生故。謂一緣唯於生時，二緣通於二時作用，故合說三。問：何故不說無想異熟？答：如《正理》二十云「豈不無想亦三緣生，是心、心所等無間故，亦應說為心等無間。但非心等加行引生，故於此中廢而不說。或此無想但聲所顯，非如二定相對立故。」《正理》既說無想異熟，同二無心是等無間，准知彼體亦有多物。

"Cessation, non-ideation... up to ...are not equal-and-immediate conditions" explains the second line. Such two absorptions, because they are induced by mind and so forth, are equal-and-immediate effects of the mind. Because they obstruct the arising of the mind and so forth, they are not equal-and-immediate conditions. The rest of the text is understood. The Mahāvibhāṣā intends to say that the two absorptions arise from three conditions. The word "arise" here means having arisen, they have not yet ceased, which is collectively called "arising." That is, one condition functions only at the time of arising, and two conditions function throughout both times; therefore, combined, they are said to be three. Question: Why is the non-ideational retribution (āsaṃjñika-vipāka) not mentioned? Answer: As fascicle 20 of the Nyāyānusāra says: "Is not non-ideation also arisen from three conditions, and being immediately preceded by mind and mental factors, should it not also be said to be equal-and-immediate to the mind? It is simply because it is not induced by the preparatory effort of the mind and so forth that it is omitted and not mentioned here. Or this non-ideation is merely indicated by the term, not established as a counter-pair like the two absorptions." Since the Nyāyānusāra states that non-ideational retribution, like the two mindless [absorptions], is equal-and-immediate, one may infer that its entity also consists of multiple elements.