俱舍論疏 5.47

5.47

[On] the treatise's: 'It takes as an analogy the non-conception absorption ... it is called the absorption of cessation': this is the answer. 'So too' merely analogizes the cessation of mind and mental factors, not the rest. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 152, says: 'Question: How many real entities constitute the nature of this absorption of cessation? Some say: This absorption has one real entity as its nature, because when a cessation is present, it is called mindless. Question: How can the presence of a single moment of cessation be called mindless? Answer: Just as the presence of a single moment of sensation is called having sensation, a single moment of ideation is called having ideation, and a single moment of consciousness is called having consciousness, so too, what fault is there if the presence of a single moment of cessation is called mindless? Some say: This absorption has eleven entities as its nature, because the ten mahābhūmikas and the mind are stopped. Some say: This absorption has twenty-one entities as its nature, because the ten mahābhūmikas, the [ten] kuśalamahābhūmikas, and the mind are stopped. The correct view is: according to however many minds and mental factors are stopped, there are that many real entities present constituting the nature of this absorption.' The difference between this and the third master's view is that the redactor also includes delight and aversion, whereas the third master has only twenty-one; thus they differ. According to this reasoning, non-conception has twenty-two, meaning delight is added; the absorption of cessation has twenty-two, meaning aversion is added. Since the two absorptions are numbered solely by the cessation of mind and mental factors, we know that non-conception also consists solely in the cessation of mind and mental factors, and the four characteristics (lakṣaṇas) are analogous. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 153, says: 'Question: When entering the absorption of cessation, what kind of mind and mental factors are stopped? Are they past, future, or present? If they are past, the past has already ceased; what is left to be stopped? If they are future, the future has not yet arisen; how could it be stopped? If they are present, the present does not endure; how could it be stopped? Even without the power of absorption, it would cease of itself. Answer: It should be stated that it stops the future. Question: Since the future has not arrived, how can it be stopped? Answer: Abiding in the present, it blocks future minds and mental factors from continuing, and therefore it is called cessation. Just as cutting off the city roads, closing the gates, and erecting banners prevents people from entering or leaving, and is thus called removing bandits, this is also like that. Some say: It stops both the future and the present. Question: The present definitely does not endure; how could it be stopped? Even without the power of absorption, it would cease of itself. Answer: Formerly, the mind and mental factors of the present caused things having conditions to arise in continuation and then ceased. Now, the mind and mental factors of the present do not cause things having conditions to arise in continuation and then cease. By whose power is this? It is by the power of the absorption. Between the two explanations above, the former should be accepted, as it accords with the rest of the text.' Someone says: taking 'some say' as incorrect violates many analogies. Furthermore, fascicle 153 says: 'Evaluation: It should be said that this mind entering absorption takes future absorption as its object, but one cannot specify which kṣaṇa it takes or does not take, because the future absorption has many kṣaṇas abiding intermingled without prior or posterior.' It also says: 'Evaluation: It should be said that this mind emerging from absorption takes past absorption as its object, but one cannot specify which kṣaṇa it takes or does not take, because the past absorption has many kṣaṇas abiding intermingled.' Based on the above text, since they abide intermingled and cannot be differentiated, it takes past and future absorption generally as its object. However, absorption with attachment takes the immediately preceding pure absorption as its object, because absorption with attachment is a mind associated with craving that takes particular characteristics as delusion, so it arises by taking the immediately preceding absorption mind specifically as its object. Because the mind emerging from the two absorptions is a wholesome mind, it takes the preceding absorption generally as its object and does not single it out.