俱舍論疏 28.257

28.257

論「此三等持至無漏不然」，漏、無漏分別也。無漏觀道皆為欣行，此為厭故，非無漏也。問：二緣聖道取空、非常，理可名為厭捨聖道。無相無相但緣無為作靜行相，何名厭道？答：此欣無學無相等持不轉之因，故名厭道。謂彼定起，義作是言。無相等持不生為善，此既欣讚聖道不生，如何不名厭捨聖道？問：前無相定非此所緣，如何此名無相無相？或應許此定不緣非擇滅，但緣無學無相不生。答：此亦不然，准前釋故。謂緣無相之非擇滅，此非擇滅亦離諸相。緣無相無相故，得無相無相名。緣無相境作靜行相，是故此定從境立名。

The Śāstra's [words] from "These three samādhis" up to "anāsrava is not so" are the distinction between sāsrava and anāsrava. Anāsrava contemplation of the Path is entirely of joyful practice; because this is for loathing, it is not anāsrava. Question: That the two which take the noble path as object grasp emptiness and impermanence can logically be called loathing and abandoning the noble path; signlessness-signlessness only takes the unconditioned as object and forms the aspect of calmness—how is it called loathing the Path? Answer: Because this joyfully praises the cause of the non-arising of the aśaikṣa signless samādhi, it is called loathing the Path. That is, when that absorption arises, in meaning it says: 'It is good that the signless samādhi does not arise.' Since this joyfully praises the non-arising of the noble path, how can it not be called loathing and abandoning the noble path? Question: The preceding signless absorption is not an object of this [absorption]—how is this called signlessness-signlessness? Or one should concede that this absorption does not take analytical cessation as object, but only takes the non-arising of the aśaikṣa signlessness [as object]. Answer: This is also not so, because of the explanation according to what preceded. That is, it takes as object the analytical cessation of the signless [absorption]; this analytical cessation is also separated from all signs. Because it takes the signless signlessness as object, it obtains the name signlessness-signlessness. Taking the signless object, it forms the aspect of calmness; therefore, this absorption derives its name from its object.