大般涅槃經集解 36.67

36.67

案僧亮曰：答見愛二行俱以因治為難。先答人是法器，而力能行慈未能及悲，是器有異也。僧宗曰：此答第二，通答第三也。言世間器有大小，四心深淺不同，何得以境使盈縮耶？器以容物為用，境有容心之義。境既有四，心何得不耶？寶亮曰：先答第四難利鈍器別，自有能行慈悲而未能行喜捨，反覆皆然，行於慈悲自有高下；喜捨亦有淺深。若爾，那得難言應二而非四乎？

Sengliang states: This answers the objection regarding the two practices of view and attachment, both being based on the cure of causes. It first answers that a person is a vessel of Dharma, and whose strength can practice loving-kindness but has not yet reached compassion; this shows that capacities differ. Sengzong states: This answers the second and broadly answers the third. It says that worldly vessels have large and small, and the four minds differ in shallow and deep; how could the object cause them to expand or contract? A vessel takes containing things as its function, and the object has the meaning of containing the mind. Since the objects are four, how could the minds not be? Baoliang states: This first answers the fourth objection regarding the distinction between sharp and dull capacities; there are those who can practice loving-kindness and compassion but cannot yet practice sympathetic joy and equanimity; the reverse is also true; practicing loving-kindness and compassion naturally has higher and lower degrees; sympathetic joy and equanimity also have shallow and deep degrees. If so, how could one object that there should be two and not four?