大般涅槃經疏 26.17

26.17

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.