大乘義章 16.24

16.24

第三就其行體分別。於中有三：一定其行體、二辨開合、三明其廢立。行體有十，所謂信、進、念、定及慧，即以為五；彼八正中正思及戒，通前為七；彼七覺中猗、喜及捨，通前為十。十中九種，心法為體。戒之一門，依如《毘曇》，色法為體。若依《成實》，作戒是色，無作是非色非心。心法之中，若依《成實》，信、進、念、思此四通數，餘五別數。別中猗、捨及與定、慧，唯善故別。喜唯有漏，不通無漏，故名為別。若依《毘曇》，信、進、猗、捨，此四是其善大地中心數之法；念、定、慧、喜，此四是其通大地中心數之法；喜是受數；餘三可知。正思覺數，五大地外別心數也，通善不善大小煩惱是五地也。思是覺數，何故名思？思量覺義，故名為思。問曰：何故諸心法中唯說此九以為道品，餘通大地餘善大地及與觀數不說為道？釋言：法門隨化隱顯，不可具責，今且隨相粗釋所以。通中想數以何義故不說為道？釋言：想者取相為義。於彼假想事觀之中功力增強；於正道中想用義微，為是不說。何故而然？諸是慧用，微隱之處多須想力，慧用強處假想必少，道中慧強故不說想。通中欲數以何義故不說為道？如來宣說三十七品，欲為根本，簡末異本，故不說欲。通中觸數以何義故不說為道？如來宣說三十七品，明觸為因，簡果異因，故不說觸。又觸專能和會心境令相觸對，於諸行心齊能和合無簡彼此；三十七品品別為義，於諸行門有偏強者說為道品，齊者不論。觸用齊等，品別不顯，故道品中不說其觸。通中思數以何義故不說為道？思是行主，起作為義，於諸行門齊能起作，無處偏強，亦於道中品別不顯，故隱不說。通中解脫以何義故不說為道？夫解脫者於境界中受取限量，於境數捨不能久住。道於境界久住、唯善，解脫不順，所以不立。又復解脫相顯在果，道品在因，故隱解脫。通中憶數以何義故不說為道？於緣發悟是其憶義，於已更事憶多發悟，未經事中發悟則少。道品多於未知法中觀察求知，憶於是中力用微少，故隱不說。善大地中無貪、無瞋、慚、愧、不害，此五何故不說為道？此於世事離過行中功力增強，於理觀中力用微少，為是不說。善大地中不放逸數，以何義故不說為道？不放逸根是其一切善法根本，簡本異未，為是不說。又不放逸，於道品中齊能攝護，無偏強處，所以不說。問曰：前說三十七品欲為根本，今復宣說不放逸法以為根本，有何差別？如《涅槃》說「欲是生因，其猶生母，諸善皆由樂欲生故。不放逸者是其了因，亦名養因，其猶養母。護攝之心是不放逸，護諸善故。」問曰：不放通護諸善不說道者，精進通策何故說道？釋言：精進於道義中有偏強處，品別可得，故說為道。別心數中觀數，何故不說為道？觀用似覺，從初以舉，故隱後觀。又復觀數推求似慧，道中慧強，故隱彼觀。行體如是（此一門竟）。

Third, distinguishing their practice nature. Herein there are three: first, determining their practice nature; second, discerning divisions and combinations; third, clarifying what is omitted and established. The practice nature has ten [factors]: namely, faith, diligence, mindfulness, samādhi, and wisdom—which make five; right thought and morality in that eightfold noble [path], joined with the previous, make seven; and pliancy, joy, and equanimity in those seven factors of awakening, joined with the previous, make ten. Among the ten, nine have mental dharmas as their nature. The single gate of morality, according to the *Abhidharma*, has matter as its nature. If according to the *Tattvasiddhi*, manifest morality is matter, and non-manifest [morality] is neither matter nor mind. Among mental dharmas, if according to the *Tattvasiddhi*, the four of faith, diligence, mindfulness, and thought are universal mental factors, while the remaining five are specific mental factors. Among the specific, pliancy, equanimity, along with samādhi and wisdom, are specific only because they are wholesome. Joy is only sāsrava and does not extend to anāsrava, hence it is called specific. If according to the *Abhidharma*, faith, diligence, pliancy, and equanimity—these four are mental factors within the wholesome universal ground; mindfulness, samādhi, wisdom, and joy—these four are mental factors within the universal ground; joy is the mental factor of sensation; the other three are understood. Right thought is the mental factor of initial investigation, a separate mental factor outside the five universal grounds; the five grounds comprise the universal, wholesome, unwholesome, major, and minor afflictions. Thought is the mental factor of initial investigation; why is it called "thought"? It ponders and investigates meaning, hence it is called "thought." Question: Why among all mental dharmas are only these nine stated to be requisites of enlightenment, while the remaining universal ground, the remaining wholesome universal ground, and the mental factor of sustained investigation are not stated to be the path? Answer: Teaching gates are concealed or revealed according to conversion; one cannot demand [an explanation] for everything. For now, we will roughly explain the reasons according to characteristics. For what reason is the mental factor of perception among the universals not stated to be the path? Answer: Perception has the meaning of grasping characteristics. In those conceptual, phenomenal contemplations, its efficacy is strengthened; but in the noble path, the function of perception is slight in significance, and for this reason it is not stated. Why is this so? Wherever there is the function of wisdom, in subtle and hidden places one mostly needs the power of perception; where the function of wisdom is strong, conceptualization must be minimal; in the path, wisdom is strong, hence perception is not stated. For what reason is the mental factor of desire among the universals not stated to be the path? When the Tathāgata proclaimed the thirty-seven requisites, desire was the root; distinguishing the branches to differentiate them from the root, desire was therefore not stated. For what reason is the mental factor of contact among the universals not stated to be the path? When the Tathāgata proclaimed the thirty-seven requisites, clear contact was the cause; distinguishing the fruit to differentiate it from the cause, contact was therefore not stated. Furthermore, contact specifically can unite mind and object so that they encounter one another; toward all practicing minds, it can equally harmonize without distinguishing between this and that; the thirty-seven requisites have distinct groupings as their meaning, and among all practice gates, those that are particularly strong are stated to be requisites of enlightenment, while those that are equal across the board are not discussed. The function of contact is equal and uniform, and its distinct category is not prominent; therefore, contact is not stated among the requisites of enlightenment. For what reason is the mental factor of intention among the universals not stated to be the path? Intention is the master of action, having the meaning of initiation; toward all practice gates, it equally initiates without being particularly strong anywhere; also, its distinct category is not prominent in the path, so it is concealed and not stated. For what reason is resolve among the universals not stated to be the path? Resolve takes on a delimited measure within an object, frequently letting go of the object and unable to abide long. The path abides long in the object and is purely wholesome; resolve is not in accord with this, so it is not established. Furthermore, the characteristics of resolve are evident in the fruit, whereas the requisites of enlightenment are in the cause, so resolve is concealed. For what reason is the mental factor of recollection among the universals not stated to be the path? Arousing awakening toward a condition is the meaning of recollection; toward things already experienced, recollection mostly arouses awakening, but toward things not yet experienced, awakening is minimal. The requisites of enlightenment mostly observe and seek to know among unknown dharmas; recollection's power and function are minimal therein, so it is concealed and not stated. Among the wholesome universal ground, non-greed, non-anger, shame, conscience, and non-harming—why are these five not stated to be the path? These have strengthened efficacy in the practice of departing from faults in worldly affairs, but in the contemplation of principle their power and function are minimal; for this reason they are not stated. For what reason is the mental factor of non-negligence among the wholesome universal ground not stated to be the path? The root of non-negligence is the root of all wholesome dharmas; distinguishing the root to differentiate it from the branches, it was therefore not stated. Furthermore, non-negligence can equally gather and protect among the requisites of enlightenment, with no place of singular strength; therefore it is not stated. Question: Previously it was stated that desire is the root of the thirty-seven requisites, and now it is proclaimed that the dharma of non-negligence is the root; what is the difference? Answer: As the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "Desire is a generative cause, like a biological mother, because all wholesome qualities are generated from aspiration. Non-negligence is a clarifying cause, also called a nurturing cause, like a foster mother. The mind of guarding and gathering is non-negligence, because it protects all wholesomeness." Question: If non-negligence is not stated to be the path because it universally protects all wholesomeness, then diligence universally urges forward; why is it stated to be the path? Answer: Diligence has a place of singular strength in the meaning of the path, and its distinct category can be found; therefore it is stated to be the path. Why is the mental factor of sustained investigation among the specific mental factors not stated to be the path? The function of sustained investigation resembles initial investigation; mentioning from the initial, subsequent sustained investigation is therefore concealed. Furthermore, the mental factor of sustained investigation in deducing and seeking resembles wisdom; in the path wisdom is strong, hence that sustained investigation is concealed. The practice nature is thus. (This concludes the first gate.)