俱舍論疏 26.35

26.35

論「云何無生智至是名無生智」，明無生智行。盡智知已知苦、斷集、證滅、修道。若無生智，知不退也。故云已知等，不應更知等。故《正理》云「何緣論說無生智中復作是言：我已知苦等。理但應說不復更知等，二行不應俱時轉故。若次第轉，前與盡智無差別故，不應重說。應知此說意為遣疑。恐有生疑：如時解脫，先起盡智後得無生，如是應許不時解脫先起無生後得盡智，為顯一切盡智先起故。復先說已知等言，或先但言我已知等，顯時解脫唯有盡智。後復重言我已知等，顯不時解脫盡後起無生。故雖重言，而無有失。」無生智者，何謂無生？正理師言「謂非擇滅有無生故。此智得生，智託無生，名無生智。滅雖常有，而得非常。得彼滅時，此智方轉。要由得起方名有滅，於有滅位此智方生。或無生言目彼滅得，如涅槃得亦名涅槃（已上論文）。」

On the Śāstra's statement: "What is the knowledge of non-arising? [...] this is named the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna)": this explains the activity of the knowledge of non-arising. The knowledge of exhaustion knows: "I have known suffering, abandoned origination, realized cessation, and cultivated the path." If it is the knowledge of non-arising, it knows non-regression. Therefore it says: "Known, etc., and should not be known again, etc." Therefore the Nyāyānusāra states: "For what reason does the treatise, in the knowledge of non-arising, again make this statement: 'I have known suffering, etc.'? In principle it should only say 'I will not know again, etc.', because the two modes of activity should not operate simultaneously. If they operate sequentially, since the former would not differ from the knowledge of exhaustion, it should not be stated redundantly. It should be understood that this statement is intended to dispel doubt. For there might be doubts: just as one who is temporarily liberated first produces the knowledge of exhaustion and later attains the knowledge of non-arising, so one should accept that one who is non-temporarily liberated first produces the knowledge of non-arising and later attains the knowledge of exhaustion. To show that for all [practitioners] the knowledge of exhaustion arises first, it therefore first speaks the words 'I have known, etc.' Or, it first merely says 'I have known, etc.' to show that one who is temporarily liberated has only the knowledge of exhaustion; then it repeats 'I have known, etc.' to show that for one who is non-temporarily liberated, after exhaustion arises non-arising. Thus, although repeated, there is no error." As for the knowledge of non-arising, what is meant by "non-arising"? The masters of the Nyāyānusāra say: "It means that because non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyānirodha) exists, there is non-arising. When this knowledge is enabled to arise, the knowledge relies upon non-arising, so it is named 'the knowledge of non-arising'. Although cessation always exists, its acquisition (prāpti) is not permanent. Only when acquiring that cessation does this knowledge then operate. It is only through the arising of acquisition that it is called 'having cessation'; in the state of having cessation, this knowledge then arises. Or, the word 'non-arising' refers to the acquisition of that cessation, just as the acquisition of nirvāṇa is also named nirvāṇa (end of text from the Śāstra)."