大乘義章 13.42

13.42

第三門中隨文辨釋。空處定者，經言「過一切色想，滅一切有對想，不念別異想，不分別色等境界，知無邊虛空，即入無邊虛空行。」過色乃至不念別異，是其滅障、滅緣色想。問曰：何故不滅色體，唯滅色想？釋言：心患可以修斷，故滅色想；色體難離，要生空處方能捨之，故此不論。問曰：何故不言滅受及餘心法，偏言滅想？釋言：想者取相為義。取彼色相，專是想過，故言滅想。雖言滅想，餘心心法通亦隨宜。又四禪中多滅諸受，四空定中多滅諸想，故偏說之。想所緣色，離合不定。總唯一色。或分為二：一可見色，謂眼所行；二不可見色，謂耳鼻等所行之色。或分為三：一可見有對，謂眼所行。二不可見有對色，謂耳鼻舌身所行之色。此等皆是有對有礙色根所對，故言有對。三不可見無對，謂意所行無作之色，不為對礙色根所對，故言無對。或分為六，謂六塵色。眼所行者色體名色，餘根所行色數名色。或分十一，謂五根、五塵及無作色。細分無量，今據一門且論三種，對之以明滅三種想。過色想者，可見有對色想滅也，故《地論》言「所謂眼識和合想滅。」滅有對者，不可見有對色想滅也，故《地論》言「謂耳鼻舌身識和合想滅。」不念別異想者，不可見無對色想滅也，故《地論》云「所謂意識和合想滅。」良以意識緣一切法，於中別分緣色邊滅，故言別異。初句言過，第二言滅，第三不念，綺互言耳。問曰：鼻舌二識之身初禪中滅，眼耳身等三識之身二禪中滅，何故至此方云眼識乃至身識和合想滅？釋言：對治有其四種。一壞對治，謂方便道及無礙道觀察下法苦無常等可破可壞。二斷對治，謂無礙道正斷下過。三持對治，解脫為首，及後一切無礙解脫，持前無為使之不失。四遠分對治，解脫為首，及後一切無礙解脫遠，能令前所斷諸過更不重起。今空處定望彼五識相應之想，有持對治、遠分對治，故說過滅。此義一切諸論大同，唯《成實》中獨為異釋。彼言過色想者，過彼色香味觸之想。滅有對者，還滅色香味觸之想，以彼對礙故須滅之。道言不念別異想者，緣聲想滅，聲從眾緣擊發而生，故曰別異。彼宗不立無作色故，為此解釋。考論經意，當如前解。不分別色等是其對治，知無邊虛空是其利益，入無邊空行是其定體。識處定者，經言「過無邊虛空想，見外念麁，分別過患，知無邊識處安穩，入無邊識處行。」過無邊空想，是其滅障。論言「行者深厭色故，以空為治。色患既除，空治亦捨。如人度河并捨船栰，亦如出賊捨之遠去，故滅空想。」見外念麁過，是其對治。知識處安隱，是其利益。入無邊識行，是其定體。無所有定者，經言「過無邊識想，見麁念分別過患，知無所有安隱，即入無處有處行。」過無邊識，是其滅障。空無邊故，緣空之識亦復無邊；識無邊故，苦亦無邊，故須滅之。見麁分別過，是其對治。知無所有安穩，是其利益。入無所有，是其定體。非想定者，經言「過無所有想，見無所有念分別過患，知非想非非想安穩，即入非想非非想處行。」過無所有想，是其滅障。見念分別過，是其對治。前無所有雖捨多想，猶有少想。見彼少想，如癕如瘡如毒如箭，故復捨之，緣於非想；復見一向非想為過，謂為愚癡，緣非非想。亦可但嫉有想之過，緣於非想，聖人以理說為有想，名非非想。知非想安穩，是其利益。入非想行，是其定體。上來第二別解八禪。

In the third section, the explanation follows the text. As for the samādhi of the base of space, the scripture states, “Surpassing all perceptions of form, eliminating all perceptions of resistance, not attending to perceptions of diversity, without distinguishing objects such as forms, knowing boundless empty space, one enters the practice of boundless empty space.” From surpassing form up to not attending to diversity constitutes eliminating obstacles and eliminating perceptions that take form as an object. Question: Why not eliminate the substance of form, but only eliminate the perception of form? Explanation: Sufferings of the mind can be severed through cultivation; therefore perceptions of form are eliminated. The substance of form is difficult to relinquish, and one can only abandon it by taking rebirth in the base of space; hence it is not discussed here. Question: Why not speak of eliminating feeling and the remaining mental dharmas, but exclusively speak of eliminating perception? Explanation: “Perception” (saṃjñā) takes grasping characteristics as its meaning. Grasping those characteristics of form is exclusively the fault of perception; hence it speaks of eliminating perception. Although it speaks of eliminating perception, the remaining minds and mental dharmas are also universally included as appropriate. Furthermore, within the four dhyānas one predominantly eliminates the feelings, and within the four formless samādhis one predominantly eliminates perceptions; therefore it is spoken of specifically. The forms that are objects of perception are indeterminately divided or combined. Comprehensively, there is only one form. Or it is divided into two: first, visible form, meaning what is the domain of the eye; second, invisible form, meaning the forms that are the domain of the ear, nose, and so forth. Or it is divided into three: first, visible and resistant (sapratigha), meaning what is the domain of the eye; second, invisible and resistant form, meaning forms that are the domains of ear, nose, tongue, and body—these are all opposed by resistant, obstructive physical sense faculties, and are therefore called resistant; third, invisible and non-resistant (apratigha), meaning unmanifest form (avijñapti-rūpa) which is the domain of the mental faculty, not opposed by resistant and obstructive physical sense faculties, and therefore called non-resistant. Or it is divided into six, meaning the forms of the six sense objects: what is the domain of the eye is the substance of form called form; what is the domain of the remaining faculties is the category of form called form. Or it is divided into eleven, meaning the five faculties, the five sense objects, and unmanifest form. Fine divisions are immeasurable; now, relying on one approach, we provisionally discuss three kinds, corresponding to which the elimination of three kinds of perception is clarified. “Surpassing perceptions of form” means the elimination of perceptions of visible and resistant form; hence the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states, “It means the elimination of perceptions associated with eye-consciousness.” “Eliminating [perceptions of] resistance” means the elimination of perceptions of invisible and resistant form; hence the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states, “It means the elimination of perceptions associated with ear, nose, tongue, and body-consciousness.” “Not attending to perceptions of diversity” means the elimination of perceptions of invisible and non-resistant form; hence the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states, “It means the elimination of perceptions associated with mental consciousness.” Indeed, because mental consciousness takes all dharmas as objects, specifically dividing among them the side that takes forms as objects is eliminated; hence it is called diversity. The first clause says “surpassing”, the second says “eliminating”, and the third says “not attending to”—these are simply alternating expressions. Question: The aggregates of nose and tongue consciousness are eliminated in the first dhyāna, and the three aggregates of consciousness of eye, ear, and body are eliminated in the second dhyāna; why only upon reaching this point does it state that perceptions associated with eye-consciousness up through body-consciousness are eliminated? Explanation: Counteragents (pratipakṣa) are of four kinds: first, counteragent of destruction (dūṣaṇā-pratipakṣa), meaning the path of expedient means and the unobstructed path contemplating the lower dharmas as suffering, impermanent, and so forth, capable of being broken and destroyed; second, counteragent of abandonment (prahāṇa-pratipakṣa), meaning the unobstructed path directly severing the lower faults; third, counteragent of maintenance (ādhāra-pratipakṣa), with liberation as foremost, and all subsequent unobstructed and liberation [paths], maintaining the unconditioned [state attained] before so that it is not lost; fourth, counteragent of distant separation (dūrībhāva-pratipakṣa), with liberation as foremost, and all subsequent unobstructed and liberation [paths] being distant, capable of preventing those faults severed before from arising again. Now, the samādhi of the base of space, in relation to those perceptions associated with the five consciousnesses, possesses the counteragent of maintenance and the counteragent of distant separation; hence it is described as surpassing and eliminating. This meaning is largely the same across all treatises; only within the Tattvasiddhi is an alternative explanation uniquely given. It says that “surpassing perceptions of form” means surpassing perceptions of form, sound, odor, and touch. “Eliminating resistance” means again eliminating perceptions of form, sound, odor, and touch, because being resistant and obstructive they must be eliminated. Saying “not attending to perceptions of diversity” means the elimination of perceptions that take sound as an object; sound arises from being struck and initiated by multiple conditions, hence it is called diversity. Because that school does not establish unmanifest form, it offers this explanation. Examining and discussing the scripture's intention, it should be as previously explained. “Not distinguishing forms and so forth” is its counteragent; “knowing boundless empty space” is its benefit; “entering the practice of boundless empty space” is its substance of samādhi. As for the samādhi of the base of consciousness, the scripture states, “Surpassing perceptions of boundless empty space, seeing the coarseness of external mindfulness and distinguishing faults, knowing the peace of the base of boundless consciousness, one enters the practice of the base of boundless consciousness.” Surpassing perceptions of boundless space is its elimination of obstacles. The treatise says, “Because the practitioner deeply detests form, they use space as the counteragent. Form's afflictions having been removed, the counteragent of space is also relinquished. Like a person crossing a river who completely abandons the raft, or like escaping from bandits and relinquishing them to go far away, one therefore eliminates perceptions of space.” Seeing the coarse faults of external mindfulness is its counteragent. Knowing the peace of the base of consciousness is its benefit. Entering the practice of boundless consciousness is its substance of samādhi. As for the samādhi of the base of nothingness, the scripture states, “Surpassing perceptions of boundless consciousness, seeing the faults of coarse mental discrimination, knowing the peace of nothingness, one enters the practice of the base of nothingness.” Surpassing boundless consciousness is its elimination of obstacles. Because space is boundless, the consciousness taking space as object is also boundless; because consciousness is boundless, suffering is also boundless, hence it must be eliminated. Seeing the faults of coarse discrimination is its counteragent. Knowing the peace of nothingness is its benefit. Entering nothingness is its substance of samādhi. As for the samādhi of neither perception, the scripture states, “Surpassing perceptions of nothingness, seeing the faults of mental discrimination in nothingness, knowing the peace of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters the practice of the base of neither perception nor non-perception.” Surpassing perceptions of nothingness is its elimination of obstacles. Seeing the faults of mental discrimination is its counteragent. Although the preceding [base of] nothingness relinquishes many perceptions, there are still subtle perceptions. Seeing those subtle perceptions to be like a boil, like a sore, like poison, like an arrow, one therefore relinquishes them again, taking non-perception as object; further seeing absolute non-perception to be a fault, deeming it ignorance, one takes neither non-perception as object. Alternatively, merely detesting the faults of having perception, one takes non-perception as object; noble ones, according to principle, describe it as having perception, calling it ‘neither non-perception’. Knowing the peace of neither perception is its benefit. Entering the practice of neither perception is its substance of samādhi. Above was the second section: specifically explaining the eight dhyānas.