大般涅槃經疏 26.17

26.17

「師子吼言何等比丘」下，第三明修道之用。文為三：初明三法、次辨二法相資、三明力用。初文，前略問答、後廣問答。略問答如文。然三法不同，若聖行以戒定慧為三法，今文以定慧捨為三法，定慧為正，捨是調停。而言時時者，非專一品，應時時調均令得自在。「師子吼言云何名」下，第二廣問答。問中二：初通問云何為定慧捨相耶？次別問三法，為二：初廣約定問、次以慧捨例。初問定為三：初據本有、次就一境、三就一行。初本有中言皆有者，謂一切眾生皆有三昧。數師明十大地中有三摩提是定數。此定本有，何須修習？河西云：取造事心專，不必十大地中定數。次心在一境者，若但行一境為定者，更復緣餘便非是定；若不餘緣，云何得名一切智人？三就一行為問者，若一行是三昧行，餘行時即非三昧；若不行餘行，非一切智。次慧捨二事，例亦如是問。佛答中，先答別問、次答通問。先答別問中二：先答定、次答慧捨。先答定中，前問定有三，今先答第二問，以第三問例，次追答第一本有之問。今初，第二云如是餘緣亦是一境，謂心專一緣此是定境，以定緣之無境不定，非謂猶是問境之一，蓋是定心緣境非是散心。以定一於一切，名一切智。若是散心緣境，為境所牽；若定心緣境，設改緣易觀，非境牽心，故得是定。行亦如是者，即兼答第三一行之問。若以散心而行諸行，行牽於心；若以定心行於諸行，令諸行一。「又言眾生」下，追答第一本有之問。善三昧者，不取大地。通三性定，乃取善修之定。次「以住如是」下，答慧捨，又二：先答其慧相；不見三昧慧異，答其捨相。「復次若取色相」下，第二答前通問。文為四：一略標三法體、二釋三法名、三更廣三法體、四明功用。初略標體為三，先標定體。言取色相者，非定執色相之心，乃是禪定門戶入住出相。不能觀色常無常者，正作靜攝，不作照知，故不能觀。次「若能觀色」下，出於慧體。常無常俱照，故非偏慧。三「三昧慧等」下，明捨體。二事合調，故云平等。又三：先法、次譬、三合法，如文。次譬者，偏定是遲，偏慧是疾，二法均平，故以駕駟為喻。三「菩薩亦爾」下，合。合中云十住菩薩智慧多三昧少者，河西云：十住進求勝地，方建大乘嚴土化人，智用偏起，故不見性。二乘自調自淨，志求證得，定多智少，亦不見性。於二平等則能見性。今明入空多則是遲相、入假多是疾相，空假雙亡是平等相，能見性者，是別教意。即空即假即中，乃不遲不疾，是善駕駟，即圓教意，乃能見性。

From “Siṃhanāda said: What kind of monk” onward, the third part clarifies the function of cultivating the path. The text has three parts: first clarifying the three dharmas, next examining the mutual assistance of the two dharmas, and third clarifying their power and function. In the first part, there is first a brief question and answer, and then an extensive question and answer. The brief question and answer is as in the text. However, the three dharmas differ: whereas holy practice takes morality, concentration, and wisdom as the three dharmas, the present text takes concentration, wisdom, and equanimity as the three dharmas, where concentration and wisdom are primary, and equanimity is their harmonization. And regarding “from time to time,” it means not being exclusive to one category, but harmonizing them evenly from time to time so that one attains mastery. From “Siṃhanāda said: What is the meaning” onward is the second part, the extensive question and answer. In the question there are two parts: first asking generally about what the marks of concentration, wisdom, and equanimity are; next asking specifically about the three dharmas, which has two parts: first asking extensively with respect to concentration, and next using wisdom and equanimity as parallels. The first part asking about concentration has three aspects: first based on inherent presence, next in terms of a single object, and third in terms of a single practice. First, regarding inherent presence, saying “all have” means that all sentient beings inherently possess samādhi. The masters of the Abhidharma clarify that among the ten universal mental factors there is samādhi, which is the mental factor of concentration. Since this concentration is inherently present, why must it be cultivated? Héxī says: it takes the mind being focused when engaging in actions, not necessarily the factor of concentration among the ten universal mental factors. Next, regarding “the mind being on a single object”: if practicing only on a single object is concentration, then whenever conditioning other objects it would not be concentration; if one does not condition other objects, how could one be called an omniscient person? Third, asking in terms of a single practice: if a single practice is the practice of samādhi, then when engaging in other practices it is not samādhi; if one does not engage in other practices, one is not omniscient. Next, the two matters of wisdom and equanimity are questioned by parallel in the same way. In the Buddha’s reply, he first answers the specific questions, and next answers the general question. In first answering the specific questions, there are two parts: first answering on concentration, and next answering on wisdom and equanimity. In first answering on concentration, previously there were three questions on concentration; now he first answers the second question, applies it by parallel to the third question, and next returns to answer the first question on inherent presence. Now first, in the second, saying that such other conditions are also a single object means that when the mind focuses on a single condition, this is the object of concentration; conditioning it with concentration, there is no object that is not concentrated. It does not mean it is still the single object of the question, but rather that the concentrated mind conditions the object, not a distracted mind. Because concentration unifies all, it is called omniscience. If a distracted mind conditions an object, it is pulled by the object; if a concentrated mind conditions an object, even if one changes conditions and shifts contemplation, it is not pulled by the object; therefore it attains this concentration. Saying “practice is also like this” concurrently answers the third question on a single practice. If one performs various practices with a distracted mind, the practices pull the mind; if one performs various practices with a concentrated mind, it unifies the various practices. From “It is also said that sentient beings” onward, he returns to answer the first question on inherent presence. Good samādhi does not take the universal mental factors; concentration common to the three natures is taken as well-cultivated concentration. Next, from “By abiding in such” onward, he answers regarding wisdom and equanimity, which again has two parts: first answering the mark of wisdom; not seeing a distinction between samādhi and wisdom answers the mark of equanimity. From “Furthermore, if one grasps the marks of matter” onward is the second part, answering the previous general question. The text has four parts: 1. briefly indicating the essences of the three dharmas; 2. explaining the names of the three dharmas; 3. further expanding the essences of the three dharmas; 4. clarifying their efficacy and function. First, briefly indicating the essences has three parts; first indicating the essence of concentration. Saying “grasping the marks of matter” does not mean a mind obstinately clinging to the marks of matter, but rather the gateways of meditative absorption—the marks of entering, abiding, and emerging. Regarding “unable to contemplate matter as permanent or impermanent,” precisely because it performs quiet containment and does not perform illuminated knowing, it is unable to contemplate. Next, from “If one can contemplate matter” onward, the essence of wisdom is brought forth. Since it illuminates both permanence and impermanence, it is not one-sided wisdom. Third, from “Samādhi and wisdom being equal” onward clarifies the essence of equanimity. The two matters being harmonized together is therefore called equality. This again has three parts: first the doctrine, next the analogy, and third the application to the doctrine, as in the text. Regarding the analogy, one-sided concentration is slow, and one-sided wisdom is fast; the two dharmas being balanced is thus compared to driving a team of four horses. Third, from “The bodhisattva is also like this” onward is the application. In the application, it says that bodhisattvas of the ten abodes have much wisdom and little samādhi; Héxī says: when bodhisattvas of the ten abodes advance toward superior stages, they just begin to establish the Mahāyāna, adorn lands, and transform people; their functional wisdom arises in a biased way, so they do not see the nature. Practitioners of the two vehicles train and purify themselves, aspiring to attain realization; having much concentration and little wisdom, they also do not see the nature. When the two are equal, then one can see the nature. Now it is explained that entering emptiness excessively is the mark of slowness, and entering the provisional excessively is the mark of speed; when both emptiness and the provisional are extinguished, that is the mark of equality, and being able to see the nature is the meaning of the Separate Teaching. Emptiness, the provisional, and the middle being identical is neither slow nor fast, which is skillful driving of a team of four horses; this is the meaning of the Perfect Teaching, and only then can one see the nature.