成唯識論述記 7.318

7.318

述曰：前言初修唯依非想，後修如何？若得此定已自在者，餘下七地心後亦得現前，即《大般若經》第一分第三百五十。次第入出諸定名師子嚬呻定，若菩薩超禪從一切地心入滅盡定，從滅定於一切地心出，是集散三摩地，第二、三會亦有此文。《對法》第五云：未自在者唯超一間，若得自在超一切地。《顯揚》十八云：若曾串習，能從欲界入無色界心。故知欲界心後越入此定。其《瑜伽》第十二說：唯自在者方超一切等至，即九等至，謂如來、大菩薩，實無欲界心，有似欲界心，實是無漏，隨在何定為加行皆能入。且從極自在，純無漏為語。實十地菩薩、廣惠聲聞、獨覺亦得。如定中聞聲，從無所有處心入欲界故，不爾，便違。問：既爾，此為即是加行心地法，為但非想心地法，若准此義，即隨加行心地法，即初定等並有此定，依加行心種上立此定故？不爾，《對法》第十三等說：想受解脫，謂依非想處解脫等，故知唯屬非想，此中亦言屬有頂故。若爾，云何名超等至？此有二解：一云：謂前起初禪等心已，後一二念起非想處心而入此定，非從初定即入無心，以定隨加行心建立故。第二解云：雖起餘地心隣即入此定，此定仍非想地為依以極細故，由先串習故今直至無心，非想為依，不須起非想心為加行。論言從微微心種上立是初起，多分非約超定者，說超等至即從初定入無心，不言入非想已方入此定故。若不然者，即此定所依唯依加行種，加行既初定等故，此定通下地有，既不許然仍言超者，後解為勝。《大般若》不言從初定等更起非想無漏心方入故，經論皆言滅盡依非想，不言依下地故。言依加行心上建立者，是非自在次第入者語，以無漏心有所屬故，彼心細故，得自在者不假熏習及無熏習，何必要依入定心等種子上立。有說《大般若》第十五會，靜慮中佛呵菩薩入滅定，滅定非利他行，若未自在雖有入者，至自在時皆不令入，但自在成就名超一切，或呵專入，不障時入，佛不起滅定而現威儀故。

The Commentary states: It was previously said that initial cultivation relies solely on [the stage of] neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation; what of subsequent cultivation? If one has already obtained this concentration and attained mastery, it may also become manifest subsequent to thoughts of the remaining seven lower stages. This is found in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, Assembly 1, Chapter 350. Entering and emerging from the various concentrations in successive order is called the lion's yawn concentration (siṃhavikrīḍita-samādhi). If a bodhisattva leaps across concentrations, entering the concentration of cessation from thoughts of any stage, and emerging from the concentration of cessation into thoughts of any stage, this is the scatter-and-gather concentration (vyutkrāntaka-samādhi); this passage also appears in the second and third assemblies. The Abhidharma-samuccaya, fascicle five, says: 'Those who have not attained mastery leap across only one intermediate stage; if one has attained mastery, one leaps across all stages.' The Prakaraṇāryavācā, fascicle eighteen, says: 'If one has formerly practiced repeatedly, one can proceed from the desire-realm mind into the formless-realm mind.' Hence we know that subsequent to a desire-realm mind, one leaps across and enters this concentration. Fascicle twelve of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Only those who have attained mastery can leap across all attainments'—that is, the nine attainments. This refers to the Tathāgata and great bodhisattvas; in reality they have no desire-realm mind, but have something resembling a desire-realm mind, which in reality is anāsrava, and can enter [this concentration] taking whichever concentration as the preparatory stage (prayoga). This is stated provisionally from the viewpoint of supreme mastery and purely anāsrava. In reality, tenth-stage bodhisattvas, śrāvakas of vast wisdom, and pratyekabuddhas can also obtain it. Just as when hearing sounds during concentration, one enters the desire realm from the stage of nothingness; otherwise there would be a contradiction. Question: If that is so, is this [cessation] a dharma belonging to the stage of the preparatory mind, or is it solely a dharma belonging to the stage of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation? If according to this meaning, then it follows whatever stage the preparatory mind belongs to, meaning the first dhyāna and so on would all have this concentration, because this concentration is established based on the seeds of the preparatory mind? [Answer:] That is not so. Fascicle thirteen of the Abhidharma-samuccaya and other texts say: 'The liberation of ideation and sensation refers to liberation relying on the stage of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation,' etc. Hence we know it belongs solely to neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation, and this text also states that it belongs to the peak of existence. If so, how is it called leaping across attainments? There are two explanations of this. One says: After one has previously given rise to minds of the first dhyāna and so on, subsequently in one or two moments of mind one gives rise to the mind of the stage of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation and enters this concentration; it is not that one enters mindless state directly from the first dhyāna, because the concentration is established in accordance with the preparatory mind. The second explanation says: Although one gives rise to the mind of another stage and immediately thereafter enters this concentration, this concentration still takes the stage of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation as its support because of its extreme subtlety. Because of prior repeated practice, now one proceeds directly to mindless state; it takes neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation as its support without needing to give rise to the mind of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation as a preparatory step. When the treatise says it is established on the seeds of the extremely subtle mind, this refers to initial arising, mostly not regarding those who leap across concentrations; for in explaining leaping across attainments, one enters the mindless state directly from the first dhyāna, without saying that one enters this concentration only after having entered neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation. If it were not so, the support of this concentration would rely solely on the seeds of the preparatory stage; and since the preparatory stage belongs to the first dhyāna and so on, this concentration would be present throughout the lower stages. Since this is not accepted, yet one still speaks of 'leaping across', the latter explanation is superior. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra does not say that one enters it only after having further given rise to the anāsrava mind of neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation from the first dhyāna and so on; and sūtras and treatises all say that cessation relies on neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation, without saying it relies on the lower stages. Stating that it is established on the preparatory mind refers to those who enter in succession without mastery; because the anāsrava mind has that to which it belongs and that mind is subtle, one who has attained mastery does not depend on perfuming or non-perfuming, so why must it be established based on the seeds of the mind that enters concentration? Some say that in the fifteenth assembly of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, in the section on dhyānas, the Buddha rebukes bodhisattvas for entering the concentration of cessation, because the concentration of cessation is not a practice that benefits others; if one has not attained mastery, although some may enter it, upon attaining mastery none are permitted to enter it, and being accomplished in mastery is simply called leaping across all; or else he rebuked exclusive entry into it, but did not prevent occasional entry, since the Buddha exhibits deportment without arising from the concentration of cessation.