大乘義章 9.27

9.27

第七門中依禪分別。毘曇法中，斷見諦惑依六地禪，未來、中間、根本四禪，是六地也。次第之人，依未來禪；超越之人，六地禪中隨依何地。問曰：何故唯六地禪能斷見惑，非四無色？釋言：前六心分麁強，能緣下地有漏之法為苦集觀，并緣彼治為滅道觀，故斷見惑。無色心細，不能緣下有漏之法為苦集觀，亦不緣彼對治滅道為滅道觀，是故不能斷見諦惑。斷修道惑，所依不定。若以有漏等智斷結，用彼八禪方便之道治斷下結，不斷自地及上地結。以何義故不斷自地？有漏力微，不能斷除自地繫縛，如人被縛不能自解。以何義故不斷上結？有漏於上唯生欣樂，不能厭故。以何義故不說未來？未來即是初禪方便。以何義故不說中間？是其初禪眷屬，不能斷除初禪地結，為是不論。若用無漏聖道斷結，依六地禪及三無色，除彼欲界及非想地，無漏大王不居邊故。就彼所依九地禪中，依未來禪所發無漏斷一切結；依餘八地所發無漏唯斷自地及上地結，不斷下地。何故如是？無漏力大故斷自地，能厭上過故斷上地。無漏必依淨禪而生，淨禪起時下結已斷，是故無漏不斷下結。以是義故，依未來禪所發無漏，能斷一切三界煩惱。依初禪地所發無漏，能斷初禪乃至非想結，不斷欲界；乃至依彼無所有定所發無漏，能斷自地及非想結不斷下地。成實法中，斷二輪惑並依四禪及三無色，并依欲界電光三昧。云何得知依於四禪及三無色？《成實》說為七依定故。云何得知依於電光？《成實》說言「離七依處，更有欲界如電三昧為所依故。」問曰：《毘曇》何故不說依於電光？《毘曇》所說欲界地中無此定故。又問：《成實》何故不依未來、中間？釋言：《成實》一向不說離初禪地別有未來，是故不依。然彼論中亦說梵王能至中間，當應相從攝屬初禪，故不別論。以何義故不依非想？非想心微，不發無漏斷煩惱故。問曰：《成實》宣說非想無漏心後入滅盡定，云何說言不發無漏？釋言：有以。先依下地發無漏觀，觀非想地苦無常等斷非想惑，然後用彼非想定心緣向所觀苦無常等，名為無漏，實無現觀斷結無漏。大乘法中，斷二輪惑多依四禪，以第四禪功力強故，是故如來成道之時依第四禪。理實通論，依欲界定乃至非想皆能斷結。問曰：欲界亂地無定，云何說言依欲界定？釋言：大乘欲界有定。故龍樹言「有欲界定，佛常依之。」此與欲界電光何別？當應電光是彼定相，聲聞暫得名為電光。又問：非想不發無漏，云何說言乃至非想？釋言：聲聞依非想定不發無漏，菩薩得發。故龍樹言「云何菩薩非想處定？實相相應，是為菩薩非想處定。」實相俱故名為無漏，實相俱故能斷煩惱。依禪如是。

Seventh, the differentiation according to dhyāna is discussed. In the Abhidharma system, abandoning the afflictions of seeing the truths relies on the six dhyāna levels: the anāgamya (preliminary), the dhyānāntara (intermediate), and the four fundamental dhyānas—these are the six levels. A practitioner of gradual progress relies on the anāgamya dhyāna; a practitioner of leapover relies on whichever level among the six dhyānas. Question: Why do only the six dhyāna levels abandon the afflictions of seeing, and not the four formless [levels]? Explanation: The mental moments of the former six are coarse and strong, capable of taking the tainted dharmas of lower levels as the contemplation of suffering and origin, as well as taking their antidotes as the contemplation of cessation and the path; therefore they abandon the afflictions of seeing. In the formless [levels], mind is subtle, incapable of taking lower tainted dharmas as the contemplation of suffering and origin, and likewise does not take their antidotes—cessation and path—as the contemplation of cessation and the path; therefore they cannot abandon the afflictions of seeing the truths. Regarding the abandonment of the afflictions of the path of cultivation, that which is relied upon is not fixed. If defilements are abandoned with tainted conventional knowledge, one uses the preparatory paths of the eight dhyānas to counteract and abandon lower defilements, but does not abandon the defilements of one's own level or higher levels. For what reason are [defilements of] one's own level not abandoned? Tainted [knowledge] is weak in strength and cannot abandon the bonds of its own level, just as a bound person cannot untie himself. For what reason are higher defilements not abandoned? Tainted [knowledge] generates only delight toward the higher and cannot become weary of it. For what reason is anāgamya not mentioned? Anāgamya is the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna. For what reason is dhyānāntara not mentioned? It is an attendant of the first dhyāna and cannot abandon the defilements of the first dhyāna level; therefore it is not discussed. If defilements are abandoned using the untainted noble path, one relies on the six dhyāna levels and the three formless [levels], excluding the desire realm and the level of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, because the great untainted king does not dwell on the peripheries. Within those nine dhyāna levels relied upon, the untainted [path] produced in reliance on anāgamya dhyāna abandons all defilements; the untainted [path] produced in reliance on the other eight levels abandons only the defilements of its own level and higher levels, not lower levels. Why is this? The untainted [path] has great strength, so it abandons its own level; it can turn away from higher faults, so it abandons higher levels. The untainted must arise relying on pure dhyāna, and when pure dhyāna arises, lower defilements have already been abandoned; therefore the untainted does not abandon lower defilements. For this reason, the untainted [path] produced in reliance on anāgamya dhyāna can abandon all afflictions of the three realms. The untainted [path] produced in reliance on the first dhyāna level can abandon the defilements of the first dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, but does not abandon the desire realm; and so on, up to the untainted [path] produced in reliance on the concentration of nothingness, which can abandon the defilements of its own level and of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, but does not abandon lower levels. In the Tattvasiddhi system, abandoning both cycles of afflictions relies on the four dhyānas and three formless [levels], as well as on the lightning-like samādhi of the desire realm. How is it known that it relies on the four dhyānas and three formless [levels]? Because the Tattvasiddhi calls them the seven concentrations to be relied upon. How is it known that it relies on lightning-like [samādhi]? Because the Tattvasiddhi states: “Apart from the seven grounds of reliance, there is further the lightning-like samādhi of the desire realm as a ground of reliance.” Question: Why does the Abhidharma not speak of relying on lightning-like [samādhi]? Because according to the Abhidharma, this concentration does not exist in the desire realm. Another question: Why does the Tattvasiddhi not rely on anāgamya and dhyānāntara? Explanation: The Tattvasiddhi does not assert at all that there is an anāgamya distinct from the first dhyāna level, so it does not rely on it. However, that treatise also says that King Brahmā can reach dhyānāntara; it should be subsumed as part of the first dhyāna, and so is not discussed separately. For what reason does it not rely on neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization? The mind of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization is subtle, and does not generate untainted [knowledge] to abandon afflictions. Question: The Tattvasiddhi states that after the untainted mind of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization one enters the concentration of cessation; how can you say it does not generate untainted [knowledge]? Explanation: There is a reason. First, relying on lower levels, one generates untainted contemplation, contemplating the suffering, impermanence, etc., of the level of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization to abandon the afflictions of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization; thereafter, using the concentrated mind of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, one focuses on the suffering, impermanence, etc., contemplated earlier; this is called untainted, but there is in truth no untainted direct realization that abandons defilements. In the Mahāyāna system, abandoning both cycles of afflictions mostly relies on the fourth dhyāna, because the functional power of the fourth dhyāna is strong; therefore, when the Tathāgata attained awakening, he relied on the fourth dhyāna. Speaking comprehensively according to principle, defilements can be abandoned relying on concentrations from the desire realm up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization. Question: The desire realm is a distracted ground and has no concentration; how can one say that it relies on the concentration of the desire realm? Explanation: In the Mahāyāna, the desire realm has concentration. Thus Nāgārjuna said: “There is a concentration of the desire realm, on which the Buddha always relied.” How is this different from the lightning-like [samādhi] of the desire realm? It must be that lightning-like is the mark of that concentration; the śrāvaka attains it temporarily, so it is called lightning-like. Another question: Since neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization does not generate untainted [knowledge], how can you say “up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization”? Explanation: Śrāvakas do not generate untainted [knowledge] relying on the concentration of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, but bodhisattvas can generate it. Thus Nāgārjuna said: “What is the bodhisattva's concentration of the sphere of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization? Being associated with the true mark is the bodhisattva's concentration of the sphere of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization.” Because it is conjoined with the true mark, it is called untainted; because it is conjoined with the true mark, it can abandon afflictions. Reliance on dhyāna is thus.