非擇滅Non-analytical cessation
無為法之第三。「不由擇力、緣闕所顯」為體——非因般若析擇斷惑，而是因緣條件不具足而諸蘊畢竟不生之狀態假立。為 #96 擇滅之形態逆對（*a-* 前綴取反）。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
無為法之第三。「不由擇力、緣闕所顯」為體——非因般若析擇斷惑，而是因緣條件不具足而諸蘊畢竟不生之狀態假立。為 #96 擇滅之形態逆對（a- 前綴取反）。
經
無為作為阿毘達磨之獨立本體範疇（asaṃskṛta-dharma），於阿含／尼柯耶不作明確列位；非擇滅之經藏概念線索可由「因緣不具則不生」之緣起否定式追溯，然此為有為法之描述，非獨立無為 dharma 之立位。論藏將此現象重編為獨立本體範疇，始於 Sarvāstivāda 阿毘達磨之三無為（虛空／擇滅／非擇滅），瑜伽行派進一步擴為六（《大乘百法明門論》）；《成唯識論》卷二重判為真如之假立面向（→#95 詞族框架已詳）。
[共傳] 「緣闕不生」之阿含語境：阿含緣起式（「此有故彼有，此無故彼無；此生故彼生，此滅故彼滅」）涵括非擇滅之現象——「此無故彼無」即因緣不具時諸行不起，然阿含此句置於緣起有為法架構中，非指無為 dharma 之立位。論藏之非擇滅乃將「因緣不具之不生」提升為獨立本體標籤，此為 Sarvāstivāda 之阿毘達磨創構。
[大乘] ⚠️ 本條無獨立大乘經典錨點確認（驗證報告未見此條之專屬大乘引文）；六無為之大乘根據見《成唯識論》卷二之「五依真如假立」論述（→#95 5-依真如假立框架已詳），不另立單獨大乘經錨。
論
非擇滅之論藏定義由淺入深四層：
《大乘五蘊論》（T31n1612, T31.0850a20–21，世親早期前唯識立場）：
云何非擇滅？謂若滅非離繫。此復云何？謂離煩惱對治而諸蘊畢竟不生。
——最簡形式：「滅非離繫」（nirodha ≠ visaṃyoga）。「離煩惱對治」不是「已斷煩惱」，而是「缺乏煩惱之對治」——因缺乏引生條件，諸蘊不生。
《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》卷二（T31n1606, T31.0702c03，安慧釋《集論》）：
非擇滅者，謂是滅非離繫，不永害隨眠故。
——此措辭與 Asg 梵本 yo nirodho na visaṃyogaḥ 為逐語素仿譯：「是滅非離繫」即 yo nirodho na visaṃyogaḥ。「不永害隨眠」為判別要核：種子（anuśaya）未被斷除，一旦因緣重聚，煩惱仍可現行——此乃非擇滅與擇滅（→#96）之根本分野。
《顯揚聖教論》卷一（T31n1602, T31.0484c02–03，無著菩薩造）：
非擇滅者，謂因緣不會，於其中間諸行不起，滅而非離繫性。
——「因緣不會」（pratītyasamutpāda 之因緣不聚合）是 Asg apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha 之標準漢譯展開：各因緣不具足而諸行暫不生；「非離繫性」（na visaṃyogaḥ）確認此滅之非斷種性格。
《成唯識論》卷二（T31n1585, T31.0006c14–15，六無為假立論；「五依真如假立」框架全塊見 →#95 5-依真如假立框架已詳）：
不由擇力，本性清淨，或緣闕所顯，故名非擇滅。
——《成唯識論》將非擇滅細分為兩種，此為 Asg 與顯揚所無之《成唯識論》獨有貢獻：
①「本性清淨」（prakṛti-pariśuddha）——非由後天析擇斷除，乃法性本自清淨之面向，不待擇力即已離染。此義橋接四種涅槃之「本來自性清淨涅槃」，近乎如來藏之「本來清淨」義，亦為非擇滅趨近真如法性之深義所在（→#100 真如承擔 the 統合者）。
②「緣闕所顯」——因緣不具而諸行不起之情況，即 Asg／顯揚之「因緣不會」主義。此為非擇滅之常規義。
按：《成唯識論》之「本性清淨」子義為本條最深之哲學貢獻——它揭示非擇滅不只是「因缺乏條件而暫不生」（偶然性）的一端，亦有「法性本自清淨，不需析擇力即已無染」（本然性）的另一端，後者將非擇滅與真如法性直接橋接，使之成為六無為中最近真如底部者之一（→#96 為「析擇所揭示」之面向；→#97「本性清淨」為「本自清淨」之面向；兩者均指向同一真如，→#100）。
梵saṃskṛta
apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha < a-（否定前綴）+ pratisaṃkhyā（析擇、簡擇；同 →#96）+ nirodha（滅、止息）——「非析擇之滅」「非由簡擇力所成之滅」。詞根結構完全繼承 #96 擇滅之 pratisaṃkhyā + nirodha，僅加 a- 否定前綴（→#96 詞源已詳；本條詞源為其形態反面，不重複）。
a- 前綴之符號翻轉為梵語否定構詞之標準形式——pratisaṃkhyā / apratisaṃkhyā 之形態對偶正映 visaṃyogaḥ / na visaṃyogaḥ 之教義對偶，構成 R.1 止息-by-identity template 之完整對稱。
《阿毘達磨集論》（阿毘達磨-samuccaya，Pradhan 校本，asaṃskṛta-dharma 段，[Abhidh-s 13]）：
apratisaṃkhyā-nirodhaḥ katamaḥ / yo nirodho na visaṃyogaḥ //
何為非擇滅？非離繫之滅（yo nirodho na visaṃyogaḥ — 「彼滅而非離繫」）。
此為 R.1 止息-by-identity template 之否定形（→#96 正形）：a- 前綴於定義式中以 na visaṃyogaḥ（非離繫）完成符號翻轉——擇滅之「滅 IS 離繫」翻轉為非擇滅之「滅 IS NOT 離繫」，兩者共構一個完整之概念矩陣：
| 無為 | Asg 梵本定義式 | 符號 | 漢語核心 |
|---|---|---|---|
| #96 擇滅 | yo nirodho visaṃyogaḥ | 肯定 — IS | 由簡擇力，滅諸雜染 |
| #97 非擇滅 | yo nirodho na visaṃyogaḥ | 否定 — IS NOT | 不由擇力，緣闕所顯 |
⚠ In Review · 此表在 #96 梵段已出現作為對偶比較（→#96）；本條梵段此表為呼應，非重複——兩條互為對方之鏡像，雙向指涉為 brief 要求之硬性規範。
按：Asg 以 a- 前綴之形態逆對建立 #96 與 #97 之配對——形態之對偶映射教義之對偶（析擇斷種 vs 緣缺不生），與 #44 不信（āśraddhya）↔ #19 信（śraddhā）之 a- 取反結構同構（→#96；→#44；→#19）。《成唯識論》之「本性清淨」子義使本條之深義超越純粹的「否定面」——它在 a-pratisaṃkhyā 的「非析擇」之中找到積極之「本自清淨」，使否定性定義攜帶正面之法性指向（→#100）。
巴pāḷi
於上座部阿毘達磨，非擇滅無任何直接結構對應。此為本詞族六無為中，與南傳分歧最深之一條（→#97 完全無南傳結構對應；與 #96 之「至少有概念上之部分近似」相比，→#96 巴段）。
南傳中「因緣不具足而不生」之現象置於緣起有為法之否定式（imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti — 「此不存在故彼不存在」），為 paṭiccasamuppāda 之否定面，屬有為法範疇，非立為獨立 asaṃkhata-dhamma。南傳之 principled 一元論立場：「因缺乏條件而不生」只是有為法依緣而生之反面，不應另立一無為法；唯 Nibbāna 為 asaṃkhata（見 Vism XVI；Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha VI.34）。
N/A 之深義：#97 之缺位揭示 Sarvāstivāda 與南傳之系統設計差異——Sarvāstivāda 特立非擇滅為三無為之一，理由是「緣缺不生」之不生具有「無為性質」（不依有為法之造作）；南傳不接受此論證，認為「緣缺不生」仍是有為法境況之描述，無需另立無為範疇。兩者非語詞分歧，乃對「範疇界定」之系統承諾不同（→#95 之南北分歧框架；→#97 為此分歧最清晰之單點體現）。
按：#97 南傳無對應之事實本身即為義理資訊——它揭示 Sarvāstivāda 擴充無為範疇之獨特本體承諾，而南傳之 principled 一元論拒絕此承諾。六無為詞族於南北傳之分歧幅度由 #95（paññatti 層分歧）→ #96（概念近似之分歧）→ #97（完全無對應）漸進展開，至 #100 真如則以「南北均承認諸法有某種如性，但架構完全異構」之更深層次收束（→#100）。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「非擇滅」之梵文 apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha 為 a-（否定前綴）+ pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha（擇滅，→#96 詞源已詳）——形態上為 #96 之直接否定逆對。a- 前綴為梵語標準否定構詞（同根：希臘 a-/an-、印歐祖語 *n̥-「非」），將「析擇之滅」翻轉為「非析擇之滅」。此 a- 符號翻轉映射教義對偶：pratisaṃkhyā（有析擇）↔ apratisaṃkhyā（無析擇），visaṃyogaḥ（IS 離繫）↔ na visaṃyogaḥ（IS NOT 離繫）——構成 R.1 止息-by-identity template 之完整符號矩陣（→#96）。漢字「非擇滅」：「非」即 a- 之否定，「擇滅」繼承 #96，三字一覽即見與 #96 之形態逆對關係。此為 6 無為之第三。
非擇滅之核心：「不由擇力、緣闕所顯」——非因般若析擇斷惑（→#96），乃因緣條件不具足而諸蘊畢竟不生之狀態假立；隨眠種子未被斷除，因緣重聚則煩惱仍可現行。《成唯識論》卷二於此條貢獻 Asg 與顯揚所無之兩種細分：①「本性清淨」（prakṛti-pariśuddha）——非由後天析擇斷除，乃法性本自清淨之面向，不待擇力即已離染，橋接四重涅槃之「本來自性清淨涅槃」；②「緣闕所顯」——因缺乏引生條件而諸行不起之常規義。前者（本性清淨）使非擇滅不只是「否定面」（缺乏析擇之偶然），更攜帶「本自清淨」之法性積極指向，橋接真如法性（→#100），揭示六無為之否定面（緣缺不生）與肯定面（法性本淨）實為同一真如之不同假立語言。於「五依真如假立」中，非擇滅依真如之「本性清淨或緣闕所顯」面相假立（→#95 5-依真如假立框架已詳；→#100 承擔統合者）。
非擇滅於南傳無任何直接結構對應。南傳之「因緣不具足而不生」現象置於緣起有為法之否定式（imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti——「此不存在故彼不存在」）：有為法依緣而生之反面，非獨立 asaṃkhata-dhamma。南傳原則性一元論立場：唯 Nibbāna 為 asaṃkhata，「緣缺不生」之不生仍是有為法境況之描述，不另立無為範疇。此為南傳完全無結構對應之例——南傳拒絕 Sarvāstivāda 之「緣缺不生具無為性質」論證（→#95 南北分歧框架已述）。
《成唯識論》之兩種細分提供禪修辨別工具：閉關中之寧靜，若因觸發境缺席而致（緣闕），屬非擇滅緣缺義；若因法性底層之本然清淨顯現，近本性清淨義。後者指向不依特定禪定環境而遍在之「法性清淨」認識——此方向即 #99 想受滅無為之預示（→#99），最終歸攝於真如（→#100）。「本性清淨」面向之認識，非修行所「取得」之成就，乃對 dharmatā 本然狀態之認識。
「非擇滅」玄奘既譯，「非」+ 「擇滅」之形態逆對結構忠實。英譯 Non-analytical cessation 通行，以 Non- 對 a- 之否定，以 analytical cessation 對 pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha（→#96），形態對偶清晰。
非擇滅 ——於非由析擇力而本性清淨或緣闕所顯之 dharmatā-面相中，假立「非擇滅」（apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）之名；性為緣缺不生或本性清淨之離染狀態，業為非析擇斷惑之止息施設；不變不滅之究竟實，依真如（→#100）之本性清淨或緣闕所顯面相假立。
英綜述en-synthesis
Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is the morphological inverse of #96 pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (→#96 for full etymology): privative prefix a- + pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. The privative a- is a standard Sanskrit negation morpheme (cognate with Greek a- / an- as in a-narchy, "without rule," and Latin in- as in in-articulate). The negation is morphologically clean: pratisaṃkhyā "analytical discernment" → a-pratisaṃkhyā "absence of analytical discernment." PIE for the privative prefix a- / an-: *n̥- (zero-grade of ne "not"), one of the most robustly attested PIE morphemes across Indic, Greek, Latin, and Germanic branches. The prefix's function in this compound: the cessation denoted is "the kind that does NOT involve pratisaṃkhyā" — not through analytical severance but through condition-absence.
Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is the third of six unconditioned dharmas, second of the four cessation-dharmas (#96–#99). Asaṅga's Abhidharma-samuccaya defines it by negated identity (R.1 template, negative form): yo nirodho na visaṃyogaḥ — "the cessation that is NOT dissociation-from-bonds." What constitutes this cessation? Not analytical severance (→#96) but the mere absence of the conditions needed for a dharma to arise: when the causal-conditional complex for a future saṃskāra never assembles, that saṃskāra simply does not arise, and that non-arising-fact receives the designation apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Crucially: the anuśaya (seeds) are not destroyed. If the same conditions were to converge, the saṃskāra could arise. Cheng Weishi Lun fascicle 2 adds a two-fold subdivision not present in Asg or Xianyang: (a) intrinsic purity (prakṛti-pariśuddha) — the aspect of dharma-nature that is always-already undefiled, not because conditions are absent but because defilement never penetrated the dharmatā itself; and (b) revealed by condition-absence — the standard Sarvāstivāda meaning. The prakṛti-pariśuddha sub-type is CWS's distinctive contribution, bridging apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha toward tathatā (#100) and toward the doctrine of intrinsic-purity-nirvāṇa (prakṛti-pariśuddha-nirvāṇa) in the four-fold nirvāṇa scheme.
Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha has no Theravāda structural equivalent — it is a pure Sarvāstivāda / Yogācāra category. Theravāda's principled monism treats "non-arising due to absent conditions" as a facet of dependent origination's negative formulation (imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti — "when this is not, that is not") — a conditioned principle, not an unconditioned dharma. Theravāda's refusal to elevate condition-absence to unconditioned-dharma status reflects a systematic architectural commitment: for Theravāda, the only entity that transcends the conditioned order is Nibbāna; everything else — including the "not-arising" produced by absent conditions — is located within the conditioned domain. The Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha has no entry for apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha because it has no category for "unconditioned non-arising." The contrast with #96 is instructive: #96 has at least a conceptual neighbor in Theravāda (Nibbāna is reached through analytical cessation of kilesa); #97 has none — there is no Theravāda asaṃkhata analogous to "condition-failure as unconditioned category." This makes #97 the clearest single-point marker of Sarvāstivāda's expansion of the unconditioned domain. The Sarvāstivāda motivation: a future dharma that will never arise due to permanently absent conditions is permanently non-arising — and permanent non-arising has the structure of unconditioned-ness, meriting its own dharma-category. Theravāda rejects this inference. Both the inference and the rejection are principled (→#95 N-S divergence framework; →#100 for the deepest N-S architectual contrast).
The meditation hazard specific to apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is misidentification — confusing condition-absence for actual attainment. The practitioner in a retreat environment, away from habitual triggers, may notice the absence of craving, aversion, or distraction, and interpret this as progress in severing them. Cheng Weishi Lun's two-fold subdivision provides the diagnostic: ask whether the non-arising is due to (a) intrinsic dharmatā-purity that does not depend on conditions at all, or (b) the simple fact that the conditions for arising have not assembled. The second is apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha in its episodic form — real, but contingent. The seeds remain. On re-encountering conditions, the kleśa will manifest again. The first sub-type — intrinsic purity — is available equally in and out of retreat, because it is not an attainment but a recognition of dharma-nature as it always already is. In this sense, apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha's deeper register points the practitioner toward the recognition of tathatā (#100) as the ground — not the condition-absent quiet of the retreat hall, but the purity inherent in dharmatā itself.
Non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) — The cessation that is NOT dissociation-from-bonds: a designation imputed on non-arising that occurs when conditions for arising are absent, rather than when a kleśa-class has been analytically severed. The seeds (anuśaya) remain intact. Cheng Weishi Lun distinguishes two sub-types: (a) intrinsic purity — the always-already-undefiled aspect of dharma-nature; (b) condition-absence — episodic non-arising due to non-convergence of conditions. Morphological inverse of pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (#96); the a- prefix encodes both the syntactic negation and the doctrinal inversion.
譯translator's note
譯者按： 結構分析詳 S3-P13。本條與 #96 擇滅構成 R.1 止息-by-identity template 之形態對偶（→#96）：a- 前綴之符號翻轉使「析擇力 IS 離繫」翻轉為「非析擇力 IS NOT 離繫」，同構於 #44 不信（āśraddhya）↔ #19 信（śraddhā）之形態逆對；而《成唯識論》之「本性清淨」子義使此否定性定義攜帶積極之法性指向，將非擇滅橋接至真如（→#100），揭示六無為之否定面（緣缺不生）與肯定面（法性本淨）實為同一真如之不同假立語言。