成唯識論了義燈 7.85

7.85

Regarding "based on the immediate samādhi" and so forth: immediately following this, one enters the darśanamārga; hence it is designated as "immediate." If "immediate" is used to name wisdom, then it is the samādhi of the immediate, taking its name as a tatpuruṣa compound. If it means that immediately upon this samādhi one enters the darśanamārga, so it is called the "immediate samādhi," this is a karmadhāraya compound. It is not like "obtaining light," because samādhi is not light. "Immediate" is not wisdom itself, but merely having no separation; thus it is named "immediate," and applies to both wisdom and samādhi. Ximing explains: "The contemplation of the supreme worldly dharma is named 'immediate,' and the samādhi upon which it relies is named the 'immediate samādhi,' which is a tatpuruṣa compound." This lacks the karmadhāraya explanation. The name "immediate" is broad and not confined to wisdom; thus, accommodating both compounds is superior. It is unlike the preceding three, because their names are narrow. Question: According to the treatise, it says: "Because names and referents differ in character, they are investigated separately; because the two sets of two are identical, they are contemplated together." Distinguishing and combining them makes four, which agrees with the Yogācārabhūmi. Why, then, does Asamāhita's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, fascicle six, state: "Whether names or referents, intrinsic nature or distinction, designating intrinsic nature and distinction of referents—because such six kinds of referents are all nonexistent"? Answer: That treatise speaks of dharmas as having six kinds: regarding the contemplation of investigation, names and referents are opened up separately; the two intrinsic natures and two distinctions are contemplated together, thus forming four kinds. The thirty-sixth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi, the sixth fascicle of the Prakaraṇāryavācā, the sixth fascicle of Asamāhita's commentary, and the twelfth chapter of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra all speak of four investigations and four knowledges of reality as it is; nowhere do they speak of six investigations. When Ximing says that "distinguished they are six, and contemplated together they are four," one knows from this that he is incorrect. The broad explanation of names, referents, intrinsic nature, and distinctions is clarified as in the sixth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the thirty-sixth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi.