大乘義章 13.37

13.37

次明支因多少廢立。初禪三禪齊立五支，二禪四禪同立四支。何故如是？釋有兩義：一對障辨釋。初禪二禪同治外亂，三禪四禪齊治內亂。外亂有二：一、欲惡不善。二、初禪中三識之身，初禪對治外亂之初，多用功力，故立五支；二禪對治外亂之終，用功微少，故立四支。內亂有二：一喜、二樂。三禪對治內亂中初，多用功力，故立五支；四禪對治內亂中終，故立四支。二地法應爾。如初禪中，正得立五，不得有餘。彼背欲惡，要須覺觀以為對治，故有覺觀。慶有所離，故有喜樂。一心定體，理必須立。何故無其內淨支者？彼治覺觀，此有覺觀，故無內淨。又此地中有三識身，如熱濁泥面像不現，故無內淨。何故無彼捨念安慧？彼與喜違，此地有喜，故無捨等。又《雜心》云「初二禪中猗樂麁動，與捨相違，故無捨支。」何故不立不苦不樂？彼是受數。初禪喜支亦是受數，兩受不並，故闕不立。第二禪中正得立四，不得有餘。是義云何？彼治覺觀及初禪地三識身故，須立內淨。慶有所得，故立喜樂。一心定體，理須立之。何故不立覺觀為支？以此內淨能治彼故。何故不立捨念安慧？此如前釋，與喜違故。何故不立不苦不樂？亦如前釋，與此喜受不得並故。第三禪中正得立五，不得有餘。為治喜過，故立捨念安慧三支。樂是利益，無宜不立。一心定體，理以須存。何故不立覺觀為支？前已捨故。何故不立內淨為支？內淨是其覺觀對治，覺觀久無不復須之，如人病差不復須藥。何故不立不苦不樂？彼是受數，與此樂受不得並故。第四禪中正得有四，不得有餘。為除樂過，故立捨念不苦不樂，是此利益。理然須立一心定體，義無不在。何故無其覺觀內淨？義同前釋。何故無喜？前已捨故。何故不立安慧支者，若依《毘曇》，第四禪中不苦不樂順無明品，安慧性是明，是二相違，為是不立。又三禪中為防二過：一他地喜、二自地樂，故立安慧。此地但除他地樂過，為是不立。若依《成實》，四禪安慧攝入念中，故不別立。故彼論說「三禪後分尚無安慧，況此四禪。」何故無樂？與此捨受不得並故。

Next, the number, omission, and establishment of limbs and causes are clarified. The first and third dhyānas both establish five limbs, while the second and fourth dhyānas equally establish four limbs. Why is this so? The explanation has two aspects. First, explaining in terms of antidotes to hindrances. The first and second dhyānas jointly cure external disturbance, while the third and fourth dhyānas equally cure internal disturbance. External disturbance has two kinds: first, desires, evil, and unwholesome things; second, the collection of three consciousnesses in the first dhyāna. The first dhyāna counteracts the initial stage of external disturbance and employs much effort, hence five limbs are established; the second dhyāna counteracts the end stage of external disturbance and employs little effort, hence four limbs are established. Internal disturbance has two kinds: first, joy; second, bliss. The third dhyāna counteracts the initial stage of internal disturbance and employs much effort, hence five limbs are established; the fourth dhyāna counteracts the end stage of internal disturbance, hence four limbs are established. Second, the principles of the stages naturally dictate this. As in the first dhyāna, exactly five limbs must be established, and there cannot be more: turning away from desires and evil, it necessarily requires initial inquiry and investigation as antidotes, hence there are initial inquiry and investigation. Rejoicing in what has been departed from, there are joy and bliss. One-pointedness of mind is the essence of samādhi, so by principle it must be established. Why is there no limb of internal clarity? Because that counteracts initial inquiry and investigation, whereas here initial inquiry and investigation are present; hence there is no internal clarity. Furthermore, in this stage there is the collection of three consciousnesses; like a face reflection failing to appear in hot, turbid mud, there is no internal clarity. Why are there no equanimity, mindfulness, or clear comprehension? These conflict with joy, and this stage has joy; hence there is no equanimity and the rest. Furthermore, the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* states: "In the first and second dhyānas, pliancy and bliss are coarse and agitating, conflicting with equanimity; hence there is no limb of equanimity." Why is neither-pain-nor-pleasure not established? That is a sensation caitta. The joy limb in the first dhyāna is also a sensation caitta; two sensations cannot coexist, hence it is omitted and not established. In the second dhyāna, exactly four limbs must be established, and there cannot be more. What does this mean? Because it counteracts initial inquiry and investigation as well as the collection of three consciousnesses of the first dhyāna stage, internal clarity must be established. Rejoicing in what has been attained, joy and bliss are established. One-pointedness of mind is the essence of samādhi, so by principle it must be established. Why are initial inquiry and investigation not established as limbs? Because this internal clarity can counteract them. Why are equanimity, mindfulness, and clear comprehension not established? This is as explained earlier: because they conflict with joy. Why is neither-pain-nor-pleasure not established? Also as explained earlier: because it cannot coexist with this sensation of joy. In the third dhyāna, exactly five limbs must be established, and there cannot be more: to counteract the fault of joy, the three limbs of equanimity, mindfulness, and clear comprehension are established. Bliss is a benefit, so it is appropriate to establish it. One-pointedness of mind is the essence of samādhi, so by principle it must be retained. Why are initial inquiry and investigation not established as limbs? Because they were already abandoned earlier. Why is internal clarity not established as a limb? Internal clarity is the antidote to initial inquiry and investigation; initial inquiry and investigation have long been absent and it is no longer needed, just as someone whose illness is cured no longer requires medicine. Why is neither-pain-nor-pleasure not established? That is a sensation caitta, and it cannot coexist with this sensation of bliss. In the fourth dhyāna, exactly four limbs must be present, and there cannot be more: to eliminate the fault of bliss, equanimity, mindfulness, and neither-pain-nor-pleasure are established, which are its benefits. By principle one-pointedness of mind must be established as the essence of samādhi, and its presence is never absent. Why are there no initial inquiry and investigation, or internal clarity? The meaning is as explained earlier. Why is there no joy? Because it was already abandoned earlier. Why is the limb of clear comprehension not established? If according to the Abhidharma, in the fourth dhyāna neither-pain-nor-pleasure accords with the category of ignorance, while the nature of clear comprehension is clear knowledge; these two conflict, and therefore it is not established. Furthermore, in the third dhyāna it is established to guard against two faults: first, joy of the other stage; second, bliss of its own stage; hence clear comprehension is established. This stage only eliminates the fault of bliss of the other stage, and therefore it is not established. If according to the *Tattvasiddhi*, clear comprehension in the fourth dhyāna is subsumed into mindfulness, hence it is not separately established. Thus that treatise says: "Even in the latter division of the third dhyāna there is no clear comprehension, how much less in this fourth dhyāna." Why is there no bliss? Because it cannot coexist with this equanimous sensation.