大乘義章 16.26

16.26

次論廢立。行實無量，隨化一門說三十七。故《涅槃》云「三十七品是涅槃因，不得名為大涅槃因，無量無邊阿僧祇道方得名為大涅槃因。」行實齊通，義不待言；隨化廢立，須釋所以。今先就彼念處、正勤及四如意以論廢立。行實無量，以何義故偏說此三為行體乎？此三要故。此有何要？三十七品用慧為主，念處是慧，故明念處。慧須制發，不制狂亂、不發沈濁，精進能發故明正懃，定能制攝故明如意；餘不如是，故隱不彰。次就根力料簡廢立。行數無量，何故偏說信等五種為根為力，餘不如是？釋言：根義聚說不定。或說一種，謂不放逸，如《涅槃》說「不放逸故，能令諸行牢固不壞、增長出生。」為顯不放獨有此能，故偏說根；餘不如是，廢而不立。又顯餘行皆不放逸之所出生，故不說根。又《涅槃》說「三十七品欲為根本。」此亦是其一種根矣。以有樂欲，便能攝修一切諸行。為彰樂欲獨有此能，故偏說根；餘不如是，故廢不立。又顯餘善皆欲出生，故不名根。或說三種，所謂況無貪、無瞋、無癡三善根也。以此能治貪欲瞋癡三不善根，故偏說之；餘不如是，故廢而不存。又此三種能生身口七支善業，故說為根；餘不如是，故廢不立。又彰餘善皆三所生，故不說根。或說五種，所謂信、進、念、定、慧根，蓋乃偏望出道故爾。此五能生出道力強，故偏說根。云何偏強？出世聖道慧為正體，慧根正能出生彼體，故立慧根。慧由定攝，精進策發方生出道，是故須立定進為根。定由念成、進由信起，是故須立信念為根。又復出道要唯止觀，定能生止、慧能起觀，故立定慧二法為根。定由念助方能生止，慧由進助方能起觀，故復須立念進為根。出世聖道從來未得，人多疑惑，非信不求，以有信故，起向四根趣入聖道，故復須立信心為根。又此信等，能治五種大煩惱地，故偏說根。何故五地？所謂不信、懈怠、無明、掉及放逸，是五地也。信治不信，精進治怠，慧治無明，禪定治掉，念治放逸。問曰：定心能治於亂、念治失念，今以何故說定治掉、念治放逸？釋言：對治義有兼正，如慈無量正治瞋恚兼治貪欲，悲正治瞋兼止害覺。此亦如是，定正除亂兼捨掉過，以得定者必能遠離掉戲過故。念心雖復正治失念兼除放逸，住正念者必定不起放逸過故。問曰：不放正除放逸，何不說根？乃就兼治說念為根？釋言：不放其力最大，獨令諸善牢固增長，如來說之以為一根，故此不立。良以信等有前多義故立為根，餘不如是廢而不存。又彰餘善皆五所生，故不說根。或復宣說一切善法悉名為根，如《涅槃》說，所謂信根、戒施聞根、慧忍精進念定根等。望果皆生，故通名根。此等開合隨一義，今據一門且說為五。力同根釋。次就八正料簡廢立。何故偏說正見等八以為正道，餘皆不立？如《雜心》釋「聖說八正以之為輪，輪必有轂，轂者是戒，謂正語、正業、正命，故說此三以為正道。以戒行本，眾行所依，故說為䡰。依䡰有輻，輻者是慧，慧是正見，故復宣說正見為道。」良以智慧向外取緣，與輻相似，故說為輻。輻須輞攝，輞者是定，故須宣說正定為道。定能攝慧，與輞相似，故說為輞。思助慧強，念助定強，故復宣說思念為道。既有輪體，復有轉者，精進能轉，故復宣說精進為道。又復此等入聖之初，翻對八邪，故說此八以為正道。餘無此義，故廢不立。言八邪者，所謂邪思惟等。問曰：何故不說信心以為正道？信實遍通，但此為彰信是始相，樹別世間。八聖道者已證聖位，非信地收，故不說信以為正道。問曰：若使信是始相，八中不彰，何故經說初果之人四不壞信？釋言：道品多行相對，是隱顯門，為別出道，見前說信。四不壞信是獨行門，不列餘義，見道已上信心實勝，故得說之。何故不說猗、喜及捨以為正道？《雜心》釋言「見道速疾，彼行不速，於見不順，為是不立。」若爾，定心住境不速，何故說之以為正道？釋言：見道雖復速疾入法中速，疾入法中速非是捨。是捨法捨外入法，正由定力，為是須立。猗、喜、捨等無如是能，故不存之。次就七覺料簡廢立。何故偏說念覺等七以為覺支，餘者不立？釋言：七覺在於修道，修中之要唯止與觀，是義相資能達彼岸，定者是止、擇法是觀，故說此二以為覺支。猗、捨二種助止力強，精進及喜助觀力強，故復須立。念能俱調，故立念覺。又復此等能治七使，故偏說之以為覺支，此如《增一阿含經》說。何者七使？一貪欲使，謂欲界地貪愛煩惱。二有愛使，謂上二界貪愛煩惱，彼經名為欲世間使。三者瞋使，四者痴使，五者慢使，六者疑使，七者見使。三界五見云何對治？念治貪欲，守心正念離貪欲故。喜覺對治欲世間使，慶入聖道，離世間故。擇法治瞋，以修智慧破離我人、除瞋恚故。捨覺治癡，捨猶除也，證法平等，捨癡冥故。猗覺治慢，以心猗息，離慢高故。定覺治疑，於法正住，離猶豫故。精進治見，懃求正慧，斷諸見故。以有此能說為覺支，餘不如是故廢不立。何故不說信為覺支？此同前釋。信是始相，樹別世間，故此不立。何故不說思為覺支？修道容豫，思性躁疾，於修不順，為是不立。若爾，精進性亦躁疾，何故得說以為覺支？釋言：修道雖復容豫，必須常續，常行不息是精進能，故說精進以為覺支。又復精進有多功力能辦諸事，入麁能麁入細能細、入遲能遲入疾能疾，故此立之。何故不說正語、正業及與正命以為覺支？《雜心》釋言「覺者是心，戒非心法，故不立覺。」行實齊通，且隨隱顯。廢立如是。第四門中止觀分別。行德雖眾，要唯止觀，故《涅槃》云「欲求須陀乃至欲求無上菩提，當修止觀。」故知止觀統攝諸行。於中分別，有其兩義。其一義者，四念觀體，正懃助成，如意為止，根力之中信念與定是其止行，慧進是觀；七覺支中，猗定念捨判之為止，擇法進喜說以為觀。八正道中，正語正業正命正念正定此五為止，正見正思及正精進此三是觀。問曰：信心通生諸行，何故於彼根力之中偏判屬止？以信安法，離猶預故、生定強故。又信行始，趣入定近，故彼《解脫道論》之中攝信為定。問曰：論說。七覺支中念能俱調，今以何故偏攝屬止？以念守境生定強故。問曰：論說八正道中精進通策，今以何故偏判屬觀？以進策發生觀強故。是中為欲二門攝法，不可以彼通義徵責。第二義者，如彼《成實．止觀品》說，四念處中前三為止，法念為觀。正懃為觀，如意為止。根力之中前四為止，後一為觀。七覺支中猗定及捨說以為止，擇法進喜說之為觀。念則俱調。八正道中，正語正業正命正念及與正定此五為止，正見正思及正精進此三名觀。問曰：四念同能觀境，何故前三偏說為止、後一為觀？釋言：前三觀身受心事相之法，事中安心，相順八禪，故判為止；後法念中通知理事，知理唯慧，故說為觀。問曰：四懃判之為觀，根力等中所有精進以何義故攝之為止？釋言：所對不同故爾。彼四正懃，對四如意禪定行故，四懃策發說之為觀；彼根力中，為簡後慧，故攝在止。問曰：何故偏簡後慧判之為止，不簡後定說為觀乎？釋言：於彼五根之中，慧根為主，餘四伴助，精進與定伴助行同，故攝在止。又彼宗中，四根是其見諦以前，慧根出世，精進與定世間行同，故判為止。問曰：若使五根之中用慧為主、餘行伴助，即令精進攝屬止者，七覺八道亦應如是，何故精進攝之屬觀？釋言：互從。理亦應齊，但彼七覺八正之行同在出世，隨相以分；精進發懃相不順止，故攝在觀。問曰：根力八正等中念皆屬止，以何義故七覺之中用念俱調？釋言：修始定未深成，要須念心堅守境界方能得定，故根力中攝念屬止；七覺行終，定心已成，假念義微，故用俱調。問曰：若言七覺定成，假念義微，故說念心為俱調者，七覺觀成，假進義微，何故不用精進通策？釋言：精進實能通策，但經中說三十七品用念為主，故用俱調；精進非主，隱通彰別，故攝為觀。

Next, we discuss elimination and establishment. Practices are in fact limitless, but in accordance with conversion [a single approach] speaks of thirty-seven. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'The thirty-seven factors are the causes of nirvāṇa, but they cannot be called the causes of great nirvāṇa; only the limitless, boundless, asaṃkhyeya paths can be called the causes of great nirvāṇa.' Practices in reality apply equally and universally; this sense goes without saying. However, their elimination and establishment in accordance with conversion requires an explanation of the reasons. Now, first, regarding the applications of mindfulness, the right diligences, and the four bases of psychic power, we discuss elimination and establishment. Practices are in fact limitless; for what reason are only these three spoken of as practice-essences? Because these three are essential. What is essential about them? The thirty-seven factors take wisdom as primary; the applications of mindfulness are wisdom, hence the applications of mindfulness are clarified. Wisdom requires restraint and instigation: without restraint, it becomes wild and distracted; without instigation, it sinks into torpor. Diligence is able to instigate, hence the right diligences are clarified; samādhi is able to restrain and gather, hence the bases of psychic power are clarified. The rest are not like this, and therefore they are hidden and not made manifest. Next, we examine elimination and establishment regarding the faculties and powers. The items of practice are limitless; why are only the five kinds—faith and so forth—spoken of as faculties and as powers, while the others are not? The explanation is: the meaning of 'faculty' (indriya) is not fixed when grouped and explained. Sometimes one kind is taught, namely, non-laxity (apramāda). As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'Because of non-laxity, all practices are enabled to become firm and indestructible, and to grow and arise.' To make manifest that non-laxity alone possesses this capability, it is exclusively taught as a faculty; the others are not like this, so they are eliminated and not established. Furthermore, to make manifest that all other practices are generated by non-laxity, they are not called faculties. Moreover, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'The thirty-seven factors take desire as their root.' This too is a kind of faculty. Because there is aspiration and desire, one is able to gather and cultivate all practices. To make manifest that aspiration and desire alone possess this capability, it is exclusively taught as a faculty; the others are not like this, and so they are eliminated and not established. Furthermore, to make manifest that all other wholesome [dharmas] are generated by desire, they are not called faculties. Sometimes three kinds are taught, namely, the three wholesome roots: non-greed, non-ill-will, and non-delusion. Because these are able to counteract the three unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will, and delusion, they are exclusively taught; the others are not like this, and so they are eliminated and not preserved. Furthermore, because these three kinds are able to produce the seven branches of wholesome action of body and speech, they are taught as faculties; the others are not like this, and so they are eliminated and not established. Furthermore, to make manifest that all other wholesome [dharmas] are generated by these three, they are not called faculties. Sometimes five kinds are taught, namely, the faculties of faith, diligence, mindfulness, samādhi, and wisdom; this is done purely with an eye to the world-transcending path. Because these five have powerful capability to generate the world-transcending path, they are exclusively taught as faculties. How are they uniquely powerful? The essence of the supramundane noble path is wisdom; the faculty of wisdom is precisely able to generate that essence, and therefore the faculty of wisdom is established. Wisdom is gathered by samādhi and spurred by diligence before it can generate the world-transcending path; for this reason, samādhi and diligence must be established as faculties. Samādhi is completed by mindfulness, and diligence arises from faith; for this reason, faith and mindfulness must be established as faculties. Furthermore, the essential components of the world-transcending path are solely śamatha and vipaśyanā: samādhi can generate śamatha, and wisdom can give rise to vipaśyanā; therefore, the two dharmas of samādhi and wisdom are established as faculties. Samādhi can only generate śamatha when aided by mindfulness, and wisdom can only give rise to vipaśyanā when aided by diligence; therefore, mindfulness and diligence must again be established as faculties. The supramundane noble path has never before been attained, so people mostly have doubts about it; without faith, they will not seek it. Because there is faith, they are stirred toward the four faculties and enter the noble path; therefore, the mind of faith must again be established as a faculty. Moreover, these [five]—faith and so forth—can counteract the five kinds of ground of great defilements, and therefore they are exclusively taught as faculties. What are the five grounds? Namely, lack of faith, indolence, ignorance, restlessness, and laxity: these are the five grounds. Faith counteracts lack of faith; diligence counteracts indolence; wisdom counteracts ignorance; dhyāna-samādhi counteracts restlessness; and mindfulness counteracts laxity. Question: The mind of samādhi is able to counteract distraction, and mindfulness counteracts forgetfulness (unmindfulness). Why is it said now that samādhi counteracts restlessness, and mindfulness counteracts laxity? The explanation is: In the meaning of counteracting (pratipakṣa), there are primary and secondary functions. Just as boundless loving-kindness primarily counteracts ill-will and secondarily counteracts greed, and boundless compassion primarily counteracts ill-will and secondarily stops thoughts of harming, so it is here: samādhi primarily eliminates distraction and secondarily discards the fault of restlessness, because one who has attained samādhi is certain to keep far away from the faults of restlessness and frivolity. Although the mind of mindfulness primarily counteracts forgetfulness, it secondarily eliminates laxity, because one who abides in right mindfulness will definitely not give rise to the fault of laxity. Question: Non-laxity primarily eliminates laxity; why is it not taught as a faculty, while mindfulness is instead taught as a faculty on the basis of a secondary counteragent? The explanation is: The power of non-laxity is greatest; it uniquely makes all wholesome dharmas firm and increasing. The Tathāgata spoke of it as a single faculty, and therefore it is not established here. Truly because faith and so forth have the many meanings mentioned above, they are established as faculties; the others are not like this, so they are eliminated and not preserved. Furthermore, to make manifest that all other wholesome [dharmas] are generated by these five, they are not called faculties. Alternatively, all wholesome dharmas are taught as faculties, as explained in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], namely: the faculty of faith, the faculties of morality, giving, and learning, the faculties of wisdom, forbearance, diligence, mindfulness, samādhi, and so forth. Viewed in terms of the results, they all generate them; hence they are universally called faculties. These expansions and contractions conform to single perspectives; relying now on one formulation, they are tentatively taught as five. The powers are explained in the same way as the faculties. Next, we examine elimination and establishment regarding the eightfold noble [path]. Why are only the eight—right view and so forth—exclusively taught as the noble path, while all others are not established? As the *Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya* explains: 'The Sage spoke of the eightfold noble [path] by using the metaphor of a wheel. A wheel must have a hub; the hub is morality, namely right speech, right action, and right livelihood, and therefore these three are taught as the noble path. Because moral practice is the root and that upon which all practices rely, it is spoken of as the hub. Relying on the hub, there are spokes; the spokes are wisdom, and wisdom is right view, hence right view is again taught as the path.' Truly because wisdom grasps objects outward, it is similar to spokes, and so it is spoken of as spokes. The spokes must be held together by a rim (felly); the rim is samādhi, hence right samādhi must be taught as the path. Samādhi can gather wisdom and is similar to a rim, so it is spoken of as the rim. Thought powerfully assists wisdom, and mindfulness powerfully assists samādhi; therefore, [right] thought and [right] mindfulness are again taught as the path. Since there is the body of the wheel, there must also be that which turns it: diligence is able to turn it, so right diligence is again taught as the path. Furthermore, when these [practitioners] initially enter into nobility, they overturn and oppose the eight kinds of wrongness; therefore, these eight are taught as the noble path. The others do not have this meaning, and so they are eliminated and not established. As for the 'eight kinds of wrongness', they are wrong thought and so forth. Question: Why is the mind of faith not taught as part of the noble path? Faith in fact pervades generally, but here this is to make manifest that faith is an initial stage, distinguishing it from the mundane. Those on the eightfold noble path have already realized the noble stage and are not subsumed within the stage of faith; therefore, faith is not taught as the noble path. Question: If faith is an initial stage and is not manifested among the eight, why do sūtras speak of the four limbs of unwavering faith (avetyaprasāda) possessed by a person of the first fruit? The explanation is: The path factors contrast multiple practices; this is a door of hiding and revealing. To distinguish the world-transcending path, faith was taught before seeing [the path]. The four limbs of unwavering faith are an approach of exclusive practice and do not list other aspects; from the path of seeing on up, the mind of faith is indeed superior, and therefore it may be taught. Why are pliancy, joy, and equanimity not taught as the noble path? The *Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya* explains: 'The path of seeing is swift; those practices are not swift and do not accord with seeing, which is why they are not established.' If so, the mind of samādhi abides in its object and is not swift; why is it taught as the noble path? The explanation is: Although the path of seeing is swift, its swift entry into dharmas is not a matter of letting go. Letting go of external dharmas and entering into dharmas precisely depends on the power of samādhi; this is why it must be established. Pliancy, joy, equanimity, and so forth lack this capability, and so they are not retained. Next, we examine elimination and establishment regarding the seven factors of awakening (bodhyaṅga). Why are only the seven—mindfulness-awakening and so forth—exclusively taught as factors of awakening, while the others are not established? The explanation is: The seven factors of awakening pertain to the path of cultivation. The essentials in cultivation are solely śamatha and vipaśyanā; these aspects support each other so that one can reach the other shore. Samādhi is śamatha, and investigation of dharmas is vipaśyanā; therefore these two are taught as factors of awakening. Pliancy and equanimity have powerful ability to assist śamatha, while diligence and joy have powerful ability to assist vipaśyanā; therefore they must also be established. Mindfulness can regulate both, and therefore mindfulness-awakening is established. Furthermore, these can counteract the seven underlying tendencies (anuśaya); therefore they are exclusively taught as factors of awakening, as taught in the *Ekottarika Āgama*. What are the seven underlying tendencies? 1. The underlying tendency to sensual desire, which refers to the defilement of greedy craving in the desire realm. 2. The underlying tendency to craving for existence, which refers to the defilement of greedy craving in the upper two realms, called in that sūtra the 'underlying tendency to worldly desire'. 3. The underlying tendency to ill-will. 4. The underlying tendency to delusion. 5. The underlying tendency to conceit. 6. The underlying tendency to doubt. 7. The underlying tendency to views. How are the five views of the three realms counteracted? Mindfulness counteracts sensual desire, because guarding the mind with right mindfulness keeps one free from sensual desire. The factor of awakening of joy counteracts the underlying tendency to worldly desire, because rejoicing in entering the noble path frees one from the world. Investigation of dharmas counteracts ill-will, because cultivating wisdom breaks down and departs from self and person, eliminating ill-will. The factor of awakening of equanimity counteracts delusion, 'equanimity' (upekṣā) here meaning elimination, because realizing the equality of dharmas discards the darkness of delusion. The factor of awakening of pliancy counteracts conceit, because when the mind is at ease and rested, it is freed from haughtiness and conceit. The factor of awakening of samādhi counteracts doubt, because abiding correctly in dharmas frees one from hesitation. Diligence counteracts views, because diligently seeking right wisdom cuts off all views. Because they possess these capabilities, they are taught as factors of awakening; the others are not like this, and so they are eliminated and not established. Why is faith not taught as a factor of awakening? This is the same as the previous explanation: faith is an initial stage, distinguishing it from the mundane, and so it is not established here. Why is thought not taught as a factor of awakening? The path of cultivation is relaxed and leisurely, while the nature of thought is hasty and agitated; it does not accord with cultivation, which is why it is not established. If so, diligence is also hasty and agitated in nature; why can it be taught as a factor of awakening? The explanation is: Although the path of cultivation is relaxed and leisurely, it must be constantly continuous; practicing constantly without ceasing is the capability of diligence, and therefore diligence is taught as a factor of awakening. Furthermore, diligence has many powers and is able to accomplish all matters: entering the coarse, it can be coarse; entering the subtle, it can be subtle; entering the slow, it can be slow; entering the swift, it can be swift. Therefore it is established here. Why are right speech, right action, and right livelihood not taught as factors of awakening? The *Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya* explains: 'Awakening is mental, but morality is not a mental dharma; hence it is not established as awakening.' Practices in reality apply universally; this is tentatively stated in accordance with what is hidden or revealed. Such is elimination and establishment. In the fourth section, we distinguish śamatha and vipaśyanā. Although the virtues of practice are numerous, their essentials are solely śamatha and vipaśyanā. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'If one wishes to seek [the fruit of] srotāpanna up to seeking unsurpassed bodhi, one should cultivate śamatha and vipaśyanā.' Hence we know that śamatha and vipaśyanā encompass all practices. Within this distinction, there are two interpretations. In the first interpretation: The four applications of mindfulness are the essence of vipaśyanā, which the right diligences help to accomplish; the bases of psychic power are śamatha. Among the faculties and powers, faith, mindfulness, and samādhi are practices of śamatha, while wisdom and diligence are vipaśyanā. Among the seven factors of awakening, pliancy, samādhi, mindfulness, and equanimity are judged to be śamatha, while investigation of dharmas, diligence, and joy are said to be vipaśyanā. In the eightfold noble path, the five—right speech, right action, right livelihood, right mindfulness, and right samādhi—are śamatha, while the three—right view, right thought, and right diligence—are vipaśyanā. Question: The mind of faith universally generates all practices; why is it exclusively judged to belong to śamatha among the faculties and powers? Because faith stabilizes in the Dharma, freeing one from hesitation and powerfully generating samādhi. Furthermore, faith is the beginning of practice and is close to entering into samādhi; therefore, in the *Vimuttimagga*, faith is subsumed under samādhi. Question: The treatise says that among the seven factors of awakening, mindfulness is able to regulate both. Why is it now exclusively subsumed under śamatha? Because mindfulness guards the object and powerfully generates samādhi. Question: The treatise says that in the eightfold noble path, diligence universally spurs on [practice]. Why is it now exclusively judged to belong to vipaśyanā? Because diligence instigates and powerfully generates vipaśyanā. Here, because we wish to subsume dharmas under two approaches, one cannot interrogate it based on that universal meaning. In the second interpretation: As taught in the 'Chapter on Śamatha and Vipaśyanā' in the *Tattvasiddhi*, among the four applications of mindfulness, the first three are śamatha, and the mindfulness of dharmas is vipaśyanā. The right diligences are vipaśyanā, and the bases of psychic power are śamatha. Among the faculties and powers, the first four are śamatha, and the last one is vipaśyanā. Among the seven factors of awakening, pliancy, samādhi, and equanimity are spoken of as śamatha, while investigation of dharmas, diligence, and joy are spoken of as vipaśyanā; mindfulness regulates both. In the eightfold noble path, the five—right speech, right action, right livelihood, right mindfulness, and right samādhi—are śamatha, while the three—right view, right thought, and right diligence—are called vipaśyanā. Question: The four applications of mindfulness are equally capable of contemplating objects; why are the first three exclusively spoken of as śamatha and the last one as vipaśyanā? The explanation is: The first three contemplate the phenomenal characteristics of body, feelings, and mind; settling the mind in phenomenal matters accords with the eight dhyānas, and is therefore judged to be śamatha. In the subsequent mindfulness of dharmas, one comprehensively understands both principles and phenomena; understanding principle is solely wisdom, and is therefore spoken of as vipaśyanā. Question: The four diligences are judged to be vipaśyanā; for what reason is the diligence within the faculties, powers, and so forth subsumed under śamatha? The explanation is: It is because their counterparts are different. Those four right diligences are paired with the dhyāna-samādhi practice of the four bases of psychic power; the instigation of the four diligences is spoken of as vipaśyanā. In the faculties and powers, [diligence] is subsumed under śamatha in order to distinguish it from the subsequent [faculty of] wisdom. Question: Why is it exclusively distinguished from the subsequent [faculty of] wisdom and judged to be śamatha, rather than being distinguished from the subsequent [faculty of] samādhi and spoken of as vipaśyanā? The explanation is: Among those five faculties, the faculty of wisdom is primary, while the other four are accompaniments; diligence and samādhi are identical in their accompanying practice, and therefore it is subsumed under śamatha. Furthermore, in that school's doctrine, the four faculties pertain to before the seeing of truth, while the faculty of wisdom is supramundane; diligence and samādhi are identical as mundane practice, and therefore it is judged to be śamatha. Question: If wisdom is taken as primary among the five faculties and the other practices are accompaniments, thereby causing diligence to be subsumed under śamatha, then the seven factors of awakening and the eightfold path should also be like this; why is diligence there subsumed under vipaśyanā? The explanation is: They follow one another. In principle they should also be equivalent, but those practices of the seven factors of awakening and the eightfold noble [path] are together supramundane, and they are divided according to their characteristics: the instigation and striving of diligence does not accord in character with śamatha, and therefore it is subsumed under vipaśyanā. Question: In the faculties, powers, eightfold path, and so forth, mindfulness all belongs to śamatha; for what reason is mindfulness used to regulate both in the seven factors of awakening? The explanation is: At the beginning of cultivation, samādhi is not yet deeply perfected; one definitely requires the mind of mindfulness to firmly guard the object before one can attain samādhi, and therefore in the faculties and powers mindfulness is subsumed under śamatha. At the culmination of practice in the seven factors of awakening, the mind of samādhi is already perfected, and the need for reliance on mindfulness is slight; therefore it is used to regulate both. Question: If it is said that when samādhi is perfected in the seven factors of awakening the need to rely on mindfulness is slight, and therefore mindfulness is said to regulate both, then when vipaśyanā is perfected in the seven factors of awakening the need to rely on diligence is also slight; why is diligence not used to universally spur on [both]? The explanation is: Diligence can indeed universally spur on, but the sūtras say that the thirty-seven factors take mindfulness as primary, and therefore it is used to regulate both; diligence is not primary, so its universal nature is hidden and its distinct nature is manifested, and thus it is subsumed under vipaśyanā.