俱舍論疏 1.96

1.96

論「依滅自無至非無同類」，通難也。除初無漏，一切有為法皆從同類因生，亦與他作同類因。初無漏雖，不從同類因生、與他作同類因，不得名為無同類也。擇滅自不從同類因生，亦不與他作同類因，故作是說滅無同類。此是《婆沙》二十一初釋也。今釋擇滅，五門分別：一出體性、二辨得名、三得差別、四證同異、五斷不同。一、出體性者，七十五法中以擇滅為體。如有漏法一一極微、一一剎那各別法上有一擇滅。故諸論云「隨繫事量，擇滅亦爾。」

The treatise says, "Because cessation itself does not … it is not that there is no homogeneous counterpart": this resolves the objection. Except for the first uncontaminated [moment], all conditioned phenomena are born from homogeneous causes and also serve as homogeneous causes for others. Although the first uncontaminated [moment] is not born from a homogeneous cause, it does serve as a homogeneous cause for others, and so cannot be called "having no homogeneous counterpart". Cessation through deliberation itself is neither born from a homogeneous cause nor does it serve as a homogeneous cause for others; therefore it is said that cessation has no homogeneous counterpart. This is the initial explanation in Vibhāṣā 21. Now, in explaining cessation through deliberation, there are five distinctions: 1. identifying its real nature, 2. analyzing the origin of its name, 3. distinctions in its acquisition, 4. identity and difference in its realization, and 5. differences in abandonment. First, regarding identifying its real nature: among the seventy-five dharmas, it takes cessation through deliberation as its entity. Just as for every single atom and every single moment among contaminated phenomena, there is a distinct cessation through deliberation upon each individual phenomenon. Hence the various treatises state: "According to the quantity of bound entities, cessation through deliberation is likewise so."