成唯識論述記 4.604

4.604

述曰：初違教失。「心行滅」言，行即受、想故。亦不得成滅受想定，名體相違故。就別破中，上破有心所訖，次破無心所。《俱舍》云：尊者世友問論中說：此即經部異師，二法為種，滅定無心，色為種子，心後依生。經部本計滅定無心，次復轉計，滅定有心，次有心所，今更轉計。彼無心所，即末轉計。此中意言：滅定有心而無心所，為避前難所以計生。

The Commentary states: The first is the error of contradicting the teaching. The words "mental activities cease" mean that the activities are precisely vedanā and saṃjñā. Nor could it be established as the absorption of the cessation of vedanā and saṃjñā, because the name and the entity contradict each other. Within the specific refutations, above, the refutation of the existence of caitasikas is finished; next is the refutation of the non-existence of caitasikas. The Abhidharmakośa states: In the discussion of the questions of the Venerable Vasumitra, this refers to a distinct master of the Sautrāntika: two dharmas serve as seeds; the absorption of cessation is without citta, and form serves as the seed from which citta subsequently arises dependent upon it. The original Sautrāntika asserted that the absorption of cessation is without citta; then they shifted their assertion to say the absorption of cessation has citta; then that it has caitasikas; now they shift their assertion again. [Saying] that it has no caitasikas is the latest shifted assertion. The meaning here is: the absorption of cessation has citta but no caitasikas; this assertion arose to avoid the previous objection.