瑜伽師地論略纂 12.53

12.53

論云「謂若滅法別有自性是實成熟，即應此滅有生有滅」者，法師：上來一重破訖，次下第二別破滅相。義曰：不然。若未解彼生生例餘相竟，下舉後滅破，總是一翻。我宗所言，滅是無法，無別成熟。汝若言別有滅相，此滅是有為故，應別有生有滅。若滅為生所生時，一切諸法皆應不用功力而自然滅，如入滅定；滅相既生，隨七、八識心心所法亦應皆滅，以滅生故。二既相違，故餘須滅。既不滅，明知我所言：此法無時名滅，非滅別有生生。以滅相有故，為生所生，能遮能生，故餘須滅。滅法有滅，准此例知。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "If cessation has a distinct intrinsic nature and is truly mature, then this cessation should have arising and perishing": Dharma Master [Shentai] states that the preceding text finished one layer of refutation, and the following specifically refutes the characteristic of cessation. The Commentary says: This is not so. If one has not yet resolved the secondary arising of that [primary] arising by analogy with the other characteristics, below adducing the subsequent cessation to refute it is all a single turn. What our school maintains is that cessation is non-existent, without a distinct maturation. If you say that there is a distinct characteristic of cessation, because this cessation would be conditioned, it should distinctively have arising and cessation. If, when cessation is produced by arising, all phenomena should naturally cease without requiring exertion, just like entering the absorption of cessation; since the characteristic of cessation has arisen, the seventh and eighth consciousnesses together with their associated mental factors should also all cease, because cessation has arisen. Since the two are in contradiction, the rest must cease. Since they do not cease, it clearly demonstrates what we maintain: when this phenomenon is non-existent, it is called cessation; cessation does not distinctively have an arising that arises it. Because the characteristic of cessation would exist, being produced by arising, it could obstruct and could produce, and therefore the rest must cease. That the phenomenon of cessation has cessation is to be known by analogy with this.