大般涅槃經疏 23.9

23.9

「云何菩薩親近」下，第四釋善友，為四：一辨明是、二辨非、三證非、四證是。初明是，為二：一菩薩是、二如來是。「剎多見佛得生天」者，二解。數義：必須上定乃得生天，今見佛力發昔修定，故得生天。二云：但令伏下界惡，隨有散善皆得生天。「雖有舍利」下，第二明非。既未識機，不能稱緣，是故云非。如來稱緣，知病識藥，是故名是。「我昔住於」下，第三證非。觀白骨者即背捨禪，數息即根本禪。舊云：金師子善取火色，故應教數息。今明不爾，金師之子善解調椎，宜扶其習，故教數息。私云：準《莊嚴論》云「善解韛囊，善知息相。澣衣之人，善取淨相，故教骨觀。」今明不爾，澣人厭穢，作背捨易。「若使眾生」下，第四證是，如文。

From "How does a bodhisattva draw near [to good friends]?" onwards, fourthly, he explains the good friend, which has four parts: first, distinguishing what is correct; second, distinguishing what is not; third, corroborating what is not; fourth, corroborating what is correct. The first, clarifying what is correct, has two parts: first, bodhisattvas are correct; second, the Tathāgata is correct. For "Cunda seeing the Buddha was able to be reborn in heaven," there are two explanations. The Abhidharma meaning: one must have higher dhyāna to attain rebirth in heaven; now, seeing the Buddha's power stimulated the dhyāna he had formerly cultivated, so he was able to be reborn in heaven. The second says: merely causing the evil of the lower realm to be subdued, any accompanying scattered goodness enables rebirth in heaven. From "Although having Śāriputra" onwards, secondly, he clarifies what is not correct. Since [Śāriputra] did not yet recognize the capacity of the faculties and could not match conditions, it is therefore said not to be correct. The Tathāgata matches conditions, knowing the illness and recognizing the medicine, and is therefore called correct. From "Formerly when I dwelt in" onwards, thirdly, he corroborates what is not correct. Contemplating white bones is the meditation of the [eight] liberations, while counting breaths is the fundamental meditation. An old explanation says: the son of a goldsmith was skilled at observing the colour of fire, so he should have been taught breath-counting. Now it is clarified that this is not so: the son of a goldsmith was skilled at regulating the mallet, so his habit should have been supported, and therefore he was taught breath-counting. Personally, I note: according to the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra*, it says: "Skilled at the bellows, he was well aware of the marks of breath. A fuller of clothes was skilled at grasping marks of purity, and was therefore taught bone contemplation." Now it is clarified that this is not so: the fuller was disgusted with defilement, making it easy to practice the [eight] liberations. From "If sentient beings" onwards, fourthly, he corroborates what is correct, as in the text.