成唯識論了義燈 5.261

5.261

《論》前云：雖屬有頂者，起等至中。本《疏》二解，今又助解，且依初師、依加行心，亦得云超約定次第。餘非想非非想定後，為加行入。今隨何心，或以欲界心，或初靜慮心為加行入？非要餘定後，故得名超。屬有頂者據初起說。依第二師，隨何地心後即能入？此不須加行，如似如來，任運能入，非起加行。問：若心先起伏已入滅，彼無不起，何得說言微微心後，厭心功能，不起位立？答：彼依初修作如是說，非自在者。若爾彼心，於餘定時，元來不起，應恒名入滅？答：有餘定心非名入滅，餘定心無此定方顯。二說後勝。

The treatise previously stated: 'Although it belongs to the peak of existence…' within arising the samāpatti. The original commentary gives two explanations, and now I also provide an auxiliary explanation. First, following the first master, according to the mind of preparation, one may also say 'transcending' in terms of the sequence of concentrations. After other minds of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one enters through preparation. Now, depending on whichever mind—whether one enters through preparation with a mind of the desire realm or a mind of the first dhyāna—it is not necessary to follow another concentration; hence it can be called 'transcending'. That it 'belongs to the peak of existence' is stated based on its initial arising. Following the second master, one can enter directly after the mind of whichever level. Here preparation is not required; just like the Tathāgata, one enters effortlessly, without raising preparations. Question: If the mind is first raised and subdued, having already entered cessation, and that mind has nowhere from which not to arise, how can one say that after the extremely subtle mind, due to the efficacy of the mind of revulsion, it is established at the position of non-arising? Answer: That is stated based on initial cultivation, not on those who have mastery. If so, when that mind fundamentally does not arise during other concentrations, should it constantly be called entering cessation? Answer: With other concentration minds it is not called entering cessation; only when other concentration minds are absent is this concentration manifested. Of the two explanations, the latter is superior.