俱舍論頌疏論本 1.65

1.65

畢竟礙當生，別得非擇滅者，釋非擇滅。言當生者，當來生法。此當生法，緣會則生，緣闕不生。於不生時，得非擇滅。此非擇滅，礙當生法，令永不起，名畢竟礙。言別得者，謂非擇滅有實體性，緣闕位中，起別得得，故非擇滅，得不因擇，但由緣闕，名非擇滅。論云：「如眼與意專一色時，餘色聲香味觸等謝。緣彼境界五識身等，住未來世畢竟不生。由彼不能緣過去境，緣不具故，得非擇滅（解云：如眼與意識專一色時，所餘不見聞等色聲香味觸落謝過去也。於專一色時，合有一類五識緣彼已謝五境，緣正專一色故，餘五識不得起。此未起五識畢竟不生，謂五境已謝故，五識唯緣現在，不合緣過去境故。未來五識得非擇滅，言觸等等取法界中，有與能緣同時為所緣境，謂他心智所緣心所也。五識等等取意識中，亦有緣同時境，謂他心智也。以他心智唯緣現在，緣心不緣心所、緣心所不緣心。正緣心時，緣心所他心智得非擇滅；正緣心所時，緣心他心智得非擇滅。此約同時合緣者說也）。」亦論云：「於法得滅，應作四句。或於諸法唯得擇滅，謂諸有漏過現生法，以有漏故唯得擇滅，以過現生法故不得非擇滅。或於諸法唯得非擇滅，謂不生法，無漏有為，以不生故得非擇滅，以無漏故不得擇滅。或於諸法俱得二滅，謂彼不生諸有漏法，以不生故得非擇滅，以有漏故亦得擇滅。或於諸法不得二滅，謂諸無漏過現生法，以無漏故不得擇滅，以過現生故亦不得非擇滅。」

“[Cessation] that absolutely obstructs what is to arise, and is separately acquired, is cessation not through deliberation” explains cessation not through deliberation (apratisaṃkhyānirodha). “What is to arise” refers to dharmas that are to arise in the future. These dharmas that are to arise come into being when conditions assemble, and do not arise when conditions are lacking. When they do not arise, cessation not through deliberation is attained. This cessation not through deliberation obstructs the dharmas that are to arise, causing them never to arise, which is called “absolutely obstructs.” “Separately acquired” means that cessation not through deliberation has a real substantial nature, and in the state where conditions are deficient, a distinct acquisition (prāpti) arises to acquire it; thus it is cessation not through deliberation. Its acquisition is not due to deliberation (pratisaṃkhyā), but solely due to deficiency of conditions; hence it is called “cessation not through deliberation.” The treatise states: “As when the eye and the mental [consciousness] are single-mindedly concentrated on one visible form, other visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, and tangibles pass away into the past. The groups of the five consciousnesses and so forth that would cognize those objects, abiding in the future, absolutely do not arise. Because they cannot cognize past objects, owing to the incompleteness of conditions, they attain cessation not through deliberation.” (The commentary explains: As when the eye and the mental consciousness are concentrated on one visible form, the remaining unseen, unheard, and other visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, and tangibles pass away into the past. When concentrated on one visible form, a class of the five consciousnesses would have cognized those five past objects, but because of being precisely concentrated on one visible form, the other five consciousnesses are unable to arise. These unarisen five consciousnesses absolutely do not arise because the five objects have already passed away, and the five consciousnesses cognize only the present, not being capable of cognizing past objects. The future five consciousnesses attain cessation not through deliberation. In the phrase “tangibles and so forth,” “and so forth” includes that in the realm of dharmas (dharmadhātu) which serves as an object simultaneously with that which cognizes it—namely, mental factors cognized by the knowledge of others' minds (paracittajñāna). In “the five consciousnesses and so forth,” “and so forth” includes that within the mental consciousness which also cognizes a simultaneous object—namely, the knowledge of others' minds. Since the knowledge of others' minds cognizes only the present, when it cognizes the mind it does not cognize mental factors, and when it cognizes mental factors it does not cognize the mind. When it is precisely cognizing the mind, the knowledge of others' minds that would cognize mental factors attains cessation not through deliberation; when it is precisely cognizing mental factors, the knowledge of others' minds that would cognize the mind attains cessation not through deliberation. This is stated with respect to those that ought to cognize simultaneously.) The treatise also states: “With respect to the attainment of cessation for dharmas, one should formulate four propositions. Either for dharmas one attains only cessation through deliberation: namely, past, present, and arising defiled (sāsrava) dharmas—because they are defiled, one attains only cessation through deliberation; because they are past, present, and arising dharmas, one does not attain cessation not through deliberation. Or for dharmas one attains only cessation not through deliberation: namely, non-arising dharmas that are uncontaminated (anāsrava) and conditioned (saṃskṛta)—because they do not arise, one attains cessation not through deliberation; because they are uncontaminated, one does not attain cessation through deliberation. Or for dharmas one attains both cessations: namely, those defiled dharmas that do not arise—because they do not arise, one attains cessation not through deliberation; because they are defiled, one also attains cessation through deliberation. Or for dharmas one attains neither cessation: namely, past, present, and arising uncontaminated dharmas—because they are uncontaminated, one does not attain cessation through deliberation; because they are past, present, and arising, one also does not attain cessation not through deliberation.”