俱舍論疏 1.107

1.107

論「謂能永礙至名非擇滅」，釋頌文也。言「得滅異前」者，前因擇得、此不因擇，故言異前。得不因慧，但由闕緣，名非擇滅。不應釋言前滅是善、此滅無記，名異前也。若爾，即是前得善滅、今得非善，即應得滅異，前名非善滅。然此闕緣名為非擇滅，因非擇得非擇滅，亦辨得名，同前擇滅是屬主釋。

On the Śāstra's statement: 'It refers to that which can perpetually obstruct [...] is called apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha': this explains the text of the verse. When it says 'the attainment of cessation differs from the former,' the former is attained due to deliberation, whereas this one is not due to deliberation; hence it says 'differs from the former.' Its attainment is not due to discernment, but solely by virtue of the deficiency of conditions; thus it is called apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. One should not explain it by saying that the former cessation is wholesome and this cessation is indeterminate, and that this is why it 'differs from the former.' If that were so, then because the former attains wholesome cessation and the present attains what is not wholesome, the attainment of cessation would differ and the former would be called a non-wholesome cessation. Rather, this deficiency of conditions is named apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; because it is attained due to non-deliberation, it is apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, which also analyzes the derivation of the name; just like the former pratisamkhyā-nirodha, it is a tatpuruṣa compound.