大般涅槃經義記 9.28

9.28

Regarding the objection against concentration, "Concentration is samādhi and is possessed by all; why then do you say one must cultivate and accumulate samādhi?" This clings to the universal to challenge the specific. Among mental factors, there is a specific factor of concentration which all sentient beings possess; clinging to this universally existent [factor], one challenges and refutes the specific cultivation. Below, with "If the mind rests [upon one realm]…", one clings to the specific to challenge the universal. Clinging to the view that abiding in a single phenomenon is samādhi while making all others non-samādhi is called challenging the universal. Dharmas have the universal and the specific: the universal is called the object-support (ālambana), and the specific is called the practice (cāritra/ākāra). Practice and object-support should penetrate each other; to distinguish the universal from the specific, their hidden and manifest names differ. Because universal dharmas can be known by taking their universal characteristics as object-supports, they are called object-supports in terms of the mind that supports them; because specific dharmas are only associated [with the mind] through the investigation of contemplative practice, they are called practices in terms of the practicing mind. Here in this text, one first clings to the specific regarding universal object-supports to challenge the universal. "If the mind [is fixed on] a single realm, it is called samādhi" establishes one's own premise; this is clinging to the specific. "If it is directed to other object-supports, it is not called samādhi" challenges and refutes the other's proposition: if other object-supports are scattered and fluctuating, how can that be called concentration? This challenges the universal. "If it is not concentrated, it is not all-knowledge" challenges knowledge in terms of concentration: that which is supported by a scattered mind is merely conceptual consciousness, so how can it be called knowledge? This is adduced to impute a fault to concentration. "If it is not all-knowledge, how can it be called concentration?" challenges concentration in terms of knowledge: if it cannot produce knowledge, how can it be called concentration? Moreover, if it is not conjoined with all-knowledge, it is easily perturbed, so how can it be called concentration? Below, in terms of specific practices, one clings to the specific to challenge the universal. "If through one single practice one attains samādhi" establishes one's own premise. "The other practices are also not [samādhi]" challenges and refutes the other's proposition. "If it is not samādhi, it is not all-knowledge" challenges knowledge in terms of concentration. "If it is not all-knowledge, how can it be called concentration?" challenges concentration in terms of knowledge. Wisdom and equanimity are likewise: analogizing the previous [argument], one challenges what follows. Although it says "likewise", when investigated minutely within this, there are similarities and differences. How are they similar and different? In terms of ordinary beings and noble ones, clinging to the universal to challenge the specific is the same across all three practices: all sentient beings possess the factor of wisdom and also possess the factor of equanimity; why then do you say one must cultivate and accumulate wisdom and equanimity? In terms of confronting objective spheres, clinging to the specific to challenge the universal differs across the three practices. How do their characteristics differ? Previously, in challenging concentration, the mind abiding in a single realm was called samādhi, while other object-supports were not. In challenging wisdom, knowing all dharmas is called all-knowledge, while knowing one is not. What is the form of the challenge? If knowing all is called all-knowledge, knowing one should not be. If knowing one is not [all-knowledge], the concentration relied upon is not called samādhi. If it is not samādhi, how can it be called knowledge? In challenging equanimity, the challenge regarding the equanimity of abandoning concentration is the same as that for wisdom; the challenge regarding the equanimity of abandoning wisdom is the same as that for concentration.