大般涅槃經集解 59.62

59.62

案僧亮曰：若心在緣不散為定，念念取緣，皆不散也。心在一境至不名三昧，若心相續一境，名定也。如其非定非一切智者，緣四則非定。所以互破者，修定慧為一切智。一切智者無法不知，名一切智。審定名智一體具二，不具非一切智也。非一切智云何名定者，若不餘緣，不知一切，非直失一切。亦復失知下，以行為異耳。定慧亦如是者，亦以非定破慧、非慧破定也。寶亮曰：既唱此三名，時眾有疑，故師子吼於一法中作三難也。舉定為隅耳，慧捨亦然也。此第一，謂眾生自有三昧，何須修耶？第二難云：定本攝心一境，佛既遍緣萬境，便應非定也。第三難云：若以一行得三昧者，是則六度之中唯一禪是，餘五應非。若定不能生智，亦非定也。

Sengliang comments: If the mind resting upon an object without distraction constitutes samādhi, then in thought after thought when grasping objects, none is distracted. From 'the mind being in a single realm' down to 'it is not named samādhi', if the mind continuously abides in a single realm, it is called samādhi. As for 'if it is not samādhi, it is not sarvajñā (all-knowledge)', if it grasps the four [truths], it is not samādhi. The reason they refute each other reciprocally is that cultivating samādhi and prajñā is done for the sake of sarvajñā. Sarvajñā is named sarvajñā because there is no phenomenon it does not know. If true certainty is termed jñāna, one entity possesses both; without possessing both, it is not sarvajñā. As for 'if it is not sarvajñā, how could it be called samādhi?', if it does not grasp other conditions and does not know all, then it not only loses all, it also loses knowledge, because their functions differ. 'Samādhi and prajñā are also like this' means that non-samādhi also refutes prajñā, and non-prajñā refutes samādhi. Baoliang comments: Once these three terms were proclaimed, the assembly had doubts, and therefore Siṃhanāda posed three objections concerning a single phenomenon. He merely raised samādhi as an instance; prajñā and upekṣā are likewise. This first objection states: Sentient beings inherently possess samādhi; why must it be cultivated? The second objection states: Samādhi essentially collects the mind into a single realm; since the Buddha comprehensively conditions the ten thousand realms, it must not be samādhi. The third objection states: If one attains samādhi through a single practice, then among the six pāramitās, only dhyāna would be it, and the other five would not. If samādhi cannot generate wisdom, it is also not samādhi.