大乘義章 10.49

10.49

次辨制立。以何義故立此三行不增不減？解有八義：一行性不同，定數是止、慧數是觀、捨數為捨。二行相不同，住緣是止、知法是觀、調停是捨。三功能不同，止能息亂、觀能斷惑、捨能違治。四修時不同，如《涅槃》說：心慢修止；煩惱增強戒律羸損，諸根不調於善疑悔，則宜修觀；定慧不等，則須修捨。又經宣說：定慧平等，則宜修捨。五行門不同，如《涅槃》說：彼空三昧，名之為止，以心住空離分別故；無願三昧說之為觀，慧觀生死能斷捨故；無相三昧說為捨行，證入涅槃捨眾相故。六根依境不同，多門如後，今此且依一相論之。依事修止，如世八禪，住事中故；依法修觀，觀察諸法苦無常等，名為觀故；依理修捨，證空平等，捨眾相故。七隨人不同，多門如後，今此且依一相辨之。如《涅槃》說：聲聞緣覺，定多慧少；菩薩之人，慧多定少；諸佛如來，定慧平等，說之為捨。八所為不同，如《涅槃》說。為三義故，所以修止：一為離煩惱，依禪伏結；二莊嚴大智，依禪發慧；三為得自在，依禪發通。為三義故，所以修觀：一為觀生死果報過故，依慧滅苦；二為增善法，依慧離業；三為破煩惱，依慧除惑。為三義故，所以修捨：一為調定慧其令平等；二為證空捨離有相；三為得中道故離有無。制立如是（此四門竟）。

Next is distinguishing their formulation. For what reason are these three practices formulated, neither increased nor decreased? There are eight explanations: First, because the natures of the practices differ: the mental factor of samādhi is śamatha, the mental factor of prajñā is vipaśyanā, and the mental factor of upekṣā is upekṣā. Second, because the active aspects of the practices differ: resting on an object is śamatha, knowing dharmas is vipaśyanā, and harmonizing is upekṣā. Third, because their functions differ: śamatha can calm distraction, vipaśyanā can sever delusions, and upekṣā can counteract bias. Fourth, because their times of cultivation differ, as the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: when the mind is sluggish, cultivate śamatha; when afflictions increase and grow strong, moral discipline weakens, the sense faculties are discordant, and one doubts and regrets regarding wholesome dharmas, then one should cultivate vipaśyanā; when samādhi and prajñā are unequal, then one must cultivate upekṣā. Furthermore, the sūtra declares: when samādhi and prajñā are equal, then one should cultivate upekṣā. Fifth, because the approaches of practice differ, as the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: the emptiness samādhi is called śamatha, because the mind abides in emptiness and is free from conceptual discrimination; the wishless samādhi is called vipaśyanā, because prajñā contemplates saṃsāra and can sever and abandon it; the signless samādhi is called the practice of upekṣā, because realizing and entering nirvāṇa relinquishes all signs. Sixth, because the support and object differ: although there are many approaches as explained later, for now we discuss them according to a single aspect. Cultivating śamatha in reliance on phenomena, as in the eight mundane dhyānas, because it abides in phenomena; cultivating vipaśyanā in reliance on dharmas, because observing all dharmas as suffering, impermanent, and so forth is called vipaśyanā; cultivating upekṣā in reliance on principle, because realizing emptiness is impartial and relinquishes all signs. Seventh, because they differ according to persons: although there are many approaches as explained later, for now we distinguish them according to a single aspect. As the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have more samādhi and less prajñā; bodhisattvas have more prajñā and less samādhi; all Buddha-Tathāgatas have samādhi and prajñā in equality, which is called upekṣā. Eighth, because their purposes differ, as the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states. For three reasons one cultivates śamatha: first, to leave afflictions behind, relying on dhyāna to subdue the fetters; second, to adorn great cognition, relying on dhyāna to produce prajñā; third, to attain sovereignty, relying on dhyāna to produce supernormal powers. For three reasons one cultivates vipaśyanā: first, to contemplate the faults of the karmic retributions of saṃsāra, relying on prajñā to eliminate suffering; second, to increase wholesome dharmas, relying on prajñā to leave karma behind; third, to shatter afflictions, relying on prajñā to remove delusions. For three reasons one cultivates upekṣā: first, to harmonize samādhi and prajñā so as to make them equal; second, to realize emptiness and relinquish the signs of existence; third, to attain the middle way and thereby leave behind existence and non-existence. Their formulation is like this (this concludes the fourth section). [10.49]