成唯識論述記 10.467

10.467

述曰：下論主答。此二於四中非擇滅攝，《顯揚論》第十八說此二無為暫時離繫，非究竟離繫故。問：諸非擇滅云何暫離不復生故？答：擇滅無為唯究竟滅，永害隨眠故。非擇滅中，《瑜伽》第五十三說：非擇滅法非一向決定。一向決定者，學見聖跡，於卵、濕二生、北拘盧洲、無想天、女身、扇𢮎、半擇、無形、二形等生，及於後有若愛、若取所得非擇滅一向決定，餘則不定，以伏種子令不生現，名非擇滅。種若遇緣便能生現，故更生也。由此非擇有定、不定。故此中言：有永滅者，有永不滅者。故此二既非是永滅攝，說「暫離」言，明非擇滅。擇滅之中有「唯」言者，顯不通暫離義。非擇滅中有「非永」言，顯不定義。《對法》第二說：有二應斷法，謂諸煩惱及所依受變易、不變易，如其次第，當知煩惱斷建立擇滅。二受滅建立不動及想受滅，此二受不生，亦名斷，不言二無為擇滅中分出，不可為難。問：既言無間道等，如何是非擇？擇者，惠也；無間生等，豈非惠也？答：起無間道，若有漏亦非擇；若無漏不斷漏種子者，定非擇滅，有何妨也？又此應徵薩婆多師不染無知起，無間道斷，而非是擇滅者，有何意不同有漏道？有漏道彼宗亦得擇滅故。或復今大乘起無間道別斷惑種，餘縛因此方永不生故，是非擇滅攝亦有何爽？既爾，定知無餘先得，所依永無，方顯先滅，名得涅槃，故擇滅攝，如想受滅無為，後時顯故，實得在前，無餘亦爾。或由先擇斷惑，復永不生故，此義應思。

The Commentary states: Below the author of the treatise answers. These two, among the four, are subsumed under cessation not through deliberation; the eighteenth fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā states that these two unconditioned are temporary separation from bondage, not ultimate separation from bondage. Question: How are cessations not through deliberation temporary separations, not arising again? Answer: The unconditioned of cessation through deliberation is solely ultimate cessation, perpetually destroying the anuśayas. Among cessations not through deliberation, the fifty-third fascicle of the Yogācāra states: dharmas of cessation not through deliberation are not definitively determined. Those that are definitively determined are those of a learner who sees the traces of the noble ones, regarding the egg-born and moisture-born births, Uttarakuru, the Heaven of Non-perception, female bodies, ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, the asexual, the hermaphroditic, and so forth, as well as the cessations not through deliberation attained regarding subsequent existence through craving or grasping—these are definitively determined; the others are indeterminate, because suppressing seeds so that they do not arise in manifest activity is called cessation not through deliberation. If the seeds meet conditions they can arise in manifest activity, so they arise again. Therefore, cessation not through deliberation has the determined and the indeterminate. Hence it says here: there are those that are perpetual cessations, and those that are not perpetual cessations. Thus, since these two are not subsumed under perpetual cessation, the word "temporary separation" is stated, clarifying that they are cessation not through deliberation. In cessation through deliberation, there is the word "solely", showing that it does not admit the sense of temporary separation. In cessation not through deliberation, there is the phrase "not perpetual", showing the sense of being indeterminate. The second fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya states: there are two dharmas to be severed, namely all afflictions and their underlying feeling, whether mutable or immutable; as they are in sequential order, one should know that the severance of afflictions establishes cessation through deliberation. The cessation of the two feelings establishes immobility and the cessation of perception and feeling; that these two feelings do not arise is also called severance; it does not say that the two unconditioned are carved out from cessation through deliberation, so this cannot serve as an objection. Question: Since an uninterrupted path and so forth are mentioned, how are they not through deliberation? Deliberation is wisdom; is the arising of the uninterrupted [path] not wisdom? Answer: When an uninterrupted path arises, if it is tainted it is also not deliberation; if it is untainted and does not sever the seeds of taints, it is definitely not cessation through deliberation, so what obstacle is there? Furthermore, one should cross-examine the Sarvāstivādins: when non-defiled ignorance arises and is severed by the uninterrupted path, yet is not cessation through deliberation, for what reason is it unlike the tainted path? For by the tainted path their school also attains cessation through deliberation. Alternatively, when the Great Vehicle now gives rise to the uninterrupted path and separately severs the seeds of delusion, other bonds because of this never arise again perpetually; so what error is there in its being subsumed under cessation not through deliberation? If so, one definitely knows that [nirvāṇa] without remainder is attained beforehand, and only when the basis is perpetually absent is the prior cessation revealed, which is named attaining nirvāṇa; therefore it is subsumed under cessation through deliberation, just as the unconditioned of the cessation of perception and feeling is revealed at a later time, while its actual attainment is prior; [nirvāṇa] without remainder is also like this. Or, because delusion is severed by prior deliberation and does not arise again perpetually, this meaning should be contemplated.