華嚴經探玄記 12.14.4

12.14.4

若爾憂喜既不對樂，何須舉之？ 釋云：樂盡之處總結四亡，顯禪不動故須舉耳。 二不苦不樂者，是利益支。 餘禪之中皆先明治，今此先明利益。 乘前斷苦斷樂，對之即明不苦不樂，彰利益義便故次論之，理實在後。 問：此正遣樂，何不但言不樂，而云不苦不樂？ 答：為明捨受不同苦樂故。 問：前離障云憂喜已滅，何不亦言不憂不喜？ 答：有二義。 一非此正滅，亦不與樂相對，故不類苦。 二若攝五受為三受時，憂喜攝入苦樂中故，以苦樂寬故，是故捨受對彼但名不苦不樂。 三行捨念淨者，是對治支。 前三禪中為樂所覆故捨念不淨，今此離彼下地樂貪故云清淨。 清淨捨念與樂貪相違，故成對治。 四入四禪者，是彼二依止三昧。 下釋四空亦各有四，然此經中略無對治行，論主準義置之。 初所離中過色想者，依《成實論》，遠離色想者，遠離香味觸想。 滅有對者，還滅色香味觸之想，以彼色等對礙故。 不念別異想者，滅緣聲想，以聲藉眾緣擊發而生，故名別異。 亦依大乘不同前說，謂色雖多種，統攝為六，謂五塵及法處。 要略唯三：一可見有對，眼識所行； 二不可見有對，餘四識所行； 三不可見無對，謂意識所行表無表色等。 此中過色想者，以離眼識所行可見色想故。 何故不言過色，但言過色想耶？ 釋：以在色地修起此定，未捨色形故。 何故但言滅想，而不言餘心法耶？ 釋：理實通有，以想取相強故。 滅有對者，離餘四識所行不可見有對四境色故，以想與心俱名為和合，亦是心與境合故也。 不念別異想者，離意識所緣法處色想，論言意識分別一切法故。 說別異想者，以相隱重釋，謂意識通緣一切諸法，於法處中簡取緣色義邊意識想滅，緣餘意識此中不遣，舉其所滅簡所不滅，故云別異。 問：香味之想初禪已離，色聲觸想二禪已除，今云何言空定滅耶？ 答：遠釋云「治有四種：一壞對治，謂方便道觀下有流無常等故； 二斷對治，謂無礙道正斷下過； 三持對治，謂解脫道為首，及後一切無間解脫持彼無為不令失壞； 四遠分對治，謂解脫道為首，及後一切無礙解脫遠令前障畢竟不起。 今此空定據第四治，故說此離。 」今更釋：於二禪中雖無色聲觸想，得借初禪三識之心見聞覺觸，是故乃至第四禪中猶有此想，今得空定故說滅之。 若爾，香味二想何故亦說？ 釋：有二義，一亦有借故； 二以與聲觸同是不可見有對色故同辨，如第四禪滅憂苦等準之，是名離障。 二對治者，論有三句。 過色等境界想者，空定離彼色等境想故名過也。 云何過？ 以不分別故。 云何不分別？ 以見無我故。 此辨實治也。 問：此中既有修行對治，為有支不？ 答：依《瓔珞本業經》，四無色定各有五支，謂想、護、止、觀、一心。 今依《雜集》等論，諸無色定，奢摩他一味想故，無支分建立也。 論主但約翻所離障、顯能治行，以義說之，非約支分。 知無邊虛空者，是修行利益。 謂三色想絕、廓爾無邊，即入虛空無色定者，是彼二依止三昧。 二過虛空相者是名離障，見外念麁分別過患是名修行對治，謂外緣虛空心念麁患故。 能見此失，知過而除彼想，故云對治也。 知無邊識者，是修行利益，謂捨外住內也。 定體可知。 三中過識是離障。 見其麁事念分別過患，是修行對治，謂猶見住識為麁患故。 知無所有者，是修行利益。 謂前捨外住內猶為麁念，莫若內外雙離、俱無所有，方為利益。 定體可知。 四中離障可知。 見彼住無所有想麁念過故，能治彼想，名修對治。 知非有想非無想安隱者，麁想既盡名為非有、細想未泯名曰非無。 此中非無，約聖智說，非謂世定覺此非無。 定體可知。 下明入意，謂但隨順化眾生法入此八定，非是自行所樂故云也。

If so, since sorrow and joy do not directly correspond to pleasure, why must they be mentioned? The explanation says: at the point where pleasure is exhausted, all four are summed up as gone, in order to show that the dhyāna is unmoving; hence they must be mentioned. Second, 'neither-pain-nor-pleasure' is the benefit limb. In the other dhyānas, the antidote is always clarified first, whereas here the benefit is clarified first. Following upon the preceding abandonment of pain and abandonment of pleasure, in contrast with them it immediately clarifies neither-pain-nor-pleasure; to demonstrate the meaning of benefit expediently, it is discussed next, though in principle it is actually subsequent. Question: This precisely dispels pleasure; why does it not simply say 'not pleasure', but says 'neither pain nor pleasure'? Answer: In order to clarify that neutral feeling (upekṣā-vedanā) is not the same as pain or pleasure. Question: In the preceding abandonment of hindrances it said that sorrow and joy are already extinguished; why does it not also say 'neither sorrow nor joy'? Answer: There are two senses. First, they are not what is precisely extinguished here, nor do they directly correspond to pleasure; hence they are not classed with pain. Second, when the five feelings are subsumed into the three feelings, sorrow and joy are subsumed into pain and pleasure, because pain and pleasure are broader; therefore, in contrast to them, neutral feeling is merely called 'neither pain nor pleasure'. Third, 'the purification of mindfulness in equanimity' is the antidote limb. In the preceding three dhyānas, equanimity and mindfulness were not pure because they were veiled by pleasure; here, being free from craving for the pleasure of those lower stages, it is said to be purified. Purified equanimity and mindfulness conflict with craving for pleasure, and thus constitute an antidote. Fourth, 'entering the fourth dhyāna' is the samādhi that serves as the basis for both. Below, in explaining the four formless attainments, each also has four [aspects]; however, in this sūtra the practice of the antidote is omitted, and the Treatise Master supplied it based on the principle. In the first, under what is abandoned, 'transcending perceptions of form': according to the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, being far removed from perceptions of form means being far removed from perceptions of odors, tastes, and tangibles. 'Extinguishing [perceptions of] resistance' means likewise extinguishing perceptions of visible form, odors, tastes, and tangibles, because those forms and so forth possess obstructive resistance. 'Not attending to perceptions of variety' means extinguishing perceptions that take sounds as object, because sound arises depending on the striking of multiple conditions, and is therefore called variety. Also, relying on the Mahāyāna, it differs from the preceding explanation: although form is of many kinds, it is subsumed under six, namely the five sense objects and the dharmāyatana. In summary there are only three: first, visible with resistance, the domain of the eye consciousness; second, invisible with resistance, the domain of the remaining four consciousnesses; third, invisible without resistance, meaning unmanifest form and so forth, which are the domain of the mental consciousness. Here, 'transcending perceptions of form' means being free from perceptions of visible form, which is the domain of the eye consciousness. Why does it not say 'transcending form', but only says 'transcending perceptions of form'? Explanation: Because one cultivates and gives rise to this concentration while in the form realm, not yet having abandoned the physical shape of form. Why does it only say 'extinguishing perceptions' and not mention the remaining mental factors? Explanation: In principle they are actually all present, but perception is strong in grasping characteristics. 'Extinguishing [perceptions of] resistance' means being free from the invisible resistant form of the four sense objects, which are the domain of the remaining four consciousnesses, because perception being accompanied by the mind is called conjunction, and it also means the conjunction of mind with object. 'Not attending to perceptions of variety' means being free from perceptions of form included in the dharmāyatana, which is the objective realm of the mental consciousness, for the treatises state that the mental consciousness discriminates all phenomena. Speaking of 'perceptions of variety' is an explanation based on the hiddenness of the characteristic: the mental consciousness universally takes all phenomena as object, and within the dharmāyatana it isolates and takes the mental consciousness's perceptions on the side of taking form as object to be extinguished; the mental consciousness that takes the remainder as object is not dispelled here; by adducing what is extinguished it distinguishes what is not extinguished, and therefore it is called 'variety'. Question: Perceptions of odor and taste are already abandoned in the first dhyāna, and perceptions of form, sound, and tangible are already eliminated in the second dhyāna; why is it now said that the concentration of [infinite] space extinguishes them? Answer: Master Yuan explained: 'There are four kinds of antidotes: first, the destructive antidote (prahāṇa-pratipakṣa), namely the expedient path contemplating that the lower outflows are impermanent and so forth; second, the abandonment antidote (pratipakṣa-prahāṇa), namely the unimpeded path directly cutting off the faults of the lower stages; third, the maintenance antidote (dhāraṇa-pratipakṣa), taking the path of liberation as foremost along with all subsequent uninterrupted liberations holding that unconditioned state so it is not lost; fourth, the distantly separated antidote (dūrībhāva-pratipakṣa), taking the path of liberation as foremost along with all subsequent unimpeded liberations causing the preceding obstacles never to arise at all. Here, this concentration of space is based on the fourth antidote, which is why it speaks of this abandonment.' Now to explain further: although in the second dhyāna there are no perceptions of form, sound, and tangible, one is able to borrow the mind of the three consciousnesses of the first dhyāna to see, hear, perceive, and touch; therefore, even up to the fourth dhyāna, there are still these perceptions; now that one attains the concentration of space, it is said that they are extinguished. If so, why are the two perceptions of odor and taste also mentioned? Explanation: There are two senses: first, they can also be borrowed; second, because together with sound and tangible they are equally invisible resistant forms, they are treated alike, which should be understood in analogy to the fourth dhyāna extinguishing sorrow, pain, and so forth. This is called the abandonment of obstacles. Second, as for the antidote, the treatise has three clauses. 'Transcending perceptions of objects such as form': because the concentration of space is free from those perceptions of objects such as form, it is called 'transcending'. How does one transcend? By not discriminating. How does one not discriminate? By seeing selflessness. This distinguishes the actual antidote. Question: Since here there is the practice of the antidote, are there limbs or not? Answer: According to the *Yingluo benye jing*, the four formless concentrations each have five limbs, namely perception, protection, śamatha, vipaśyanā, and one-pointedness of mind. Now, according to treatises such as the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya*, all formless concentrations have the notion of a single taste of śamatha, and therefore no establishment of limbs. The Treatise Master merely spoke of them in terms of meaning to reverse the obstacles abandoned and to reveal the practicing antidote, not in terms of limbs. 'Knowing boundless space' is the benefit of cultivation. That is, the three perceptions of form are severed, vast and boundless, and 'entering the formless concentration of space' is the samādhi that serves as the basis for both. Second, 'transcending the marks of space' is called the abandonment of obstacles; 'seeing the faults of the coarse discrimination of outward attention' is called the cultivation of the antidote, meaning that the coarse fault is the mind's attention outwardly taking space as an object. Being able to see this fault, knowing the error and removing that perception, is therefore called the antidote. 'Knowing boundless consciousness' is the benefit of cultivation, meaning abandoning the outer and abiding in the inner. The essence of the concentration can be understood. In the third, 'transcending consciousness' is the abandonment of obstacles. 'Seeing the faults of the coarse discrimination of thinking about things' is the cultivation of the antidote, meaning still seeing abiding in consciousness as a coarse fault. 'Knowing nothingness' is the benefit of cultivation. That is, the preceding abandonment of the outer to abide in the inner was still a coarse thought; nothing is better than abandoning both inner and outer so that both are nothing at all, which only then constitutes the benefit. The essence of the concentration can be understood. In the fourth, the abandonment of obstacles can be understood. 'Seeing the coarse thought fault of abiding in the perception of nothingness', being able to remedy that perception is called cultivating the antidote. 'Knowing the tranquility of neither-perception-nor-non-perception': since coarse perception is already exhausted it is called 'neither-perception', and since subtle perception has not yet disappeared it is called 'nor-non-perception'. Here, 'non-non-perception' is spoken in terms of noble wisdom, not meaning that worldly concentration is aware of this non-non-perception. The essence of the concentration can be understood. Below, the intention of entering is clarified, meaning that one enters these eight concentrations merely in accord with the Dharma of transforming sentient beings, not because it is what is relished in one's own practice; hence it is stated.