瑜伽師地論略纂 16.48

16.48

論云「若不爾者，於此音聲不領受故，不應出定」等者，謂薩婆多定中無五識，今破之云：若不定中起耳識緣聲，耳者於此音聲，定中既不領受，不應後時得出定，住散心中。若耳識定中即非取聲時，意識即便出定，要耳領受聲已，意識有希望故，後時方出。又耳識取聲時在定中，非取聲時即便出定，在定外取聲也；要獨耳識定中領受聲已，有希望故，後時意識方出。此等並定有五識家解，此解如別抄及《對法》第七。

The treatise states: 'If it were not so, then because of not experiencing this sound, one should not emerge from absorption,' and so forth. This refers to the Sarvāstivādins' claim that there are no five consciousnesses within absorption; it is now refuted by saying: If an auditory consciousness did not arise within absorption to apprehend sound, then since the ear would not have experienced this sound within absorption, one should not subsequently be able to emerge from absorption and abide in a distracted state of mind. It is not that when the auditory consciousness within absorption takes the sound, the mental consciousness immediately emerges from absorption; it requires the ear to have experienced the sound first, and because the mental consciousness develops an anticipation, it only then subsequently emerges. Moreover, when the auditory consciousness takes the sound, it is within absorption; it is not that at the time of taking the sound it immediately emerges from absorption and takes the sound outside of absorption. It requires the solitary auditory consciousness to have experienced the sound within absorption first, and because there is anticipation, only subsequently does the mental consciousness emerge. These are all explanations of the school that maintains the five consciousnesses definitely exist within absorption; this explanation is as found in the separate notes and the seventh [fascicle] of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-bhāṣya].