止觀輔行傳弘決 8.3

8.3

「若開」等者，次明開合。開為八萬，合但三毒。八萬既不出於三毒，今觀三毒即觀八萬。為是義故，須辯開合。「三毒」下，明為障不同。初明四分俱能障定。唯有無記不屬善惡，即不障定。是即不障定者，仍屬陰境。若為障者，兩屬不同，謂發、不發，如前簡也。「經云」下，引《大品》證無記不障，即師子等定所入散心。此並依《毘曇》意也。次依《成論》人意，亦許《毘曇》四分俱散，而不云四分俱障，但云散中無不並有相應癡惑，故云「散兼無知」，能障定者則在於癡。「若爾」下，難成論人四分俱散、散兼無知、癡能障定。此相應癡，癡必瞋欲。癡既障定，癡有瞋欲何不障定，而獨立云癡能障定？「今釋」下，今家正解。言「別意」者，如上釋蓋隨人不同，若貪重者貪即為蓋，瞋癡為障亦復如是。故今為障，准彼應知。故《毘曇》家所引《大品》以為證者，是義不然。彼《大品經》明超越三昧，從滅定起入散心中，故言此散而不障定。今所論散障與不障，應辯凡夫所有三毒，如何引於羅漢勝定出散等相？

From "if opening" down next explains opening and combining. Opening makes eighty thousand; combining makes only the three poisons. Since eighty thousand does not go beyond the three poisons, now contemplating the three poisons is precisely contemplating the eighty thousand. For the sake of this meaning, opening and combining must be distinguished. From "the three poisons" down explains the differences in acting as obstacles. First, it explains that the four parts can all obstruct concentration. Only the indeterminate, belonging neither to good nor evil, does not obstruct concentration. That which does not obstruct concentration still belongs to the aggregate object. As for those that act as obstacles, their two affiliations are different—namely, manifesting and not manifesting—as distinguished before. From "the scripture says" down cites the Dapin to prove that the indeterminate does not obstruct, which refers to the dispersed mind entered from concentrations such as the lion [stride]. These all rely on the intent of the Abhidharma. Next, relying on the intent of the masters of the Satyasiddhi, they also concede that in the Abhidharma all four parts are dispersed, yet they do not say that all four parts are obstructive; they merely say that within the dispersed, there is none that does not concurrently have associated ignorant delusion; hence it says, "the dispersed is accompanied by lack of knowledge," and that which can obstruct concentration lies in ignorance. From "if so" down refutes the Satyasiddhi master's claim that all four parts are dispersed, the dispersed is accompanied by lack of knowledge, and ignorance can obstruct concentration. As for this associated ignorance, ignorance necessarily involves anger and desire. Since ignorance obstructs concentration, and ignorance has anger and desire, why would these not obstruct concentration, such that he uniquely establishes that ignorance can obstruct concentration? From "our present explanation" down gives our school's correct interpretation. The phrase "specific meaning" is like the explanation of covers above, which varies according to the person: if someone has heavy greed, greed is the cover; anger and ignorance acting as obstacles are also like this. Therefore, regarding their acting as obstacles now, one should know by analogy to that. Thus, as for what the Abhidharma master cites from the Dapin as proof, that meaning is incorrect. That Dapin Scripture clarifies the leaping samādhi, where one arises from the concentration of cessation and enters into the dispersed mind; therefore it says that this dispersed state does not obstruct concentration. Now, in discussing whether the dispersed state obstructs or does not obstruct, one should analyze the three poisons possessed by common people; how could one cite the characteristics of an arhat's superior concentration, arising into the dispersed state, and the like?