大般涅槃經義記 5.30

5.30

次明定行，有人釋言：四念惠性非是定行。若使四念一向是惠不為定者，彼俱生戒應名道戒，不名定戒；彼俱生戒得名定戒，四念為定，竟有何妨？又若四念是惠性故不得為定，八禪等智亦是惠數，應不名定；彼得名定，此復何疑？又復八禪以定為主，於中等智十智門收，四念雖復用惠為主，於中定教，何為不得定學所攝？當知諸行一一門中具一切義，隨義論之何所不通？而今居定，以此文中依戒起定，數之次第，故說念處以為定學。

Next, the practice of concentration is clarified. Someone explains: the four applications of mindfulness are of the nature of wisdom, not the practice of concentration. [I reply:] If the four applications of mindfulness were exclusively wisdom and not concentration, then the precepts born together with them should be called path precepts, not concentration precepts; if those co-arising precepts can be called concentration precepts, what harm is there in taking the four applications of mindfulness to be concentration? Furthermore, if the four applications of mindfulness, because of being of the nature of wisdom, could not be concentration, then the wisdoms of the eight dhyānas and the like are also mental factors of wisdom, and should not be called concentration; if they can be called concentration, what doubt is there here? Furthermore, the eight dhyānas take concentration as primary, and the wisdoms therein are subsumed under the ten gates of wisdom; although the four applications of mindfulness take wisdom as primary, why should the teachings on concentration therein not be subsumed under the training in concentration? One should know that within each and every gate of all practices, all meanings are complete; if discussed in terms of meaning, what would not be consistent? Now, placed under concentration, because in this text concentration arises relying on precepts according to the numerical sequence, the applications of mindfulness are therefore spoken of as the training in concentration.