止觀輔行傳弘決 9.30

9.30

○次明慈心定。初略辯前後、次正明所發。云「善修得解」者，寄修辯發。準教修習故名為善，修成就已名為得解。「所緣有三」者，謂怨、親、中人，約處即是廣大無量。緣此三人乃至十方令得上樂，即是慈心成就之相。《婆沙》云「怨親各三，中人一品。」《大經．梵行》文意大同。經論二文各有修相，《禪門》中亦明修法，謂初修時令上親人得於下樂，次修令上親得中樂，中親得下樂。次修令上親得上樂，中親得中樂，下親得下樂。次修令中親得上樂，下親得中樂，中人得下樂。次修令下親得上樂，中人得中樂，下怨得下樂。次修令中人得上樂，下怨得中樂，中怨得下樂。次修令下怨得上樂，中怨得中樂，上怨得下樂。次修令中怨得上樂，上怨得中樂。次修令上怨得上樂。是名修慈成就之相。悲喜二心，亦復如是。若修捨心，從中人起，若先捨親恐生愛著、若先捨怨恐生瞋恚，是故應須先捨中人，於怨親中怨易捨故。次捨怨人，於怨人中先上、次中、次下。次捨親人，先下、次中、次上。若捨心成就，等無分別。修既不等，發時準知。問：何人不能修四無量心？答：有二種人，求過人者不能修之，不求過者而能修之。求過之人，乃至羅漢亦求其過。求善人者而能修之，求善人者乃至闡提亦求其善，現在雖無，過未或有。《婆沙》中廣明其相。言「廣大無量」等者，約三人，如文。三人雖遍，處若未遍，不名成就，故又約方。故《婆沙》云「為緣一眾生？為緣多眾生？答：初修之時緣多眾生，成就之時或一或多。方所亦爾。」《大論》二十一廣明修相。言「隱沒」等者，若依根本，內外俱隱沒，及外隱沒內不隱沒，餘則內外俱不隱沒。「因緣」已下，例同此判。「若先」下，明與諸禪互發。初明發初禪，初標先後、次明發五支。釋觀支中，云「或得人中天上樂」等者，《婆沙》「問：為與眾生何處樂？答：有說與三禪樂，樂中勝故。有說與四事樂，已曾得故。有說與曾經行處所有樂，至所住處思惟令得。」「愉」者亦樂，《論語》云「愉愉如也」。「此名同根本」等者，辯同異。支名觸名並同根本，根本如水、慈如蜜和。「若發」等者，亦是寄修以辯功能。梵民為梵眾，梵臣為梵輔。《婆沙》「問：梵福云何？答：有云一切眾生福。有云輪王福。有云帝釋福。有云自在天福。有云梵天福。有云除近佛菩薩餘一切人福。有云梵王請佛轉法輪福。評家云：梵福無量，如上所說皆稱美耳。」有說四種得梵福：一未起塔處以舍利起塔、二未有僧坊處起僧坊、三和合僧破、四修四無量。故《淨名》云「修四無量，開梵天道。」次明初禪發慈定，次明慈定發二三四禪，如文。次「但慈心」下，判大小。「佛或時」等者，《婆沙》云「佛說慈定，報不過遍淨。乃至捨心，不過無所有處。」具如今文。《婆沙》小乘尚至不用處，況復菩薩法耶？當知小乘具有二說。從「菩薩恒與慈悲俱」下，方屬大乘，地地皆有四無量心。《婆沙》中「又問：餘三無量心，何故在無色？答：此事彌勒始知。」當知教權赴機而說，未窮實理，故云「一往」。從「若先得根本」下，明二三四禪發慈定。但云根本者，從略。具足應須明位及判大小等。「若依特勝」下，次約根本淨禪發慈定。云「所依之定自是一邊」等者，特勝已去既有觀慧與慈相別，又與慈心俱起及前後等，故得名為自在一邊。「不淨取眾生破壞相」等者，問也。觀其破壞與得樂反，慈定不成。「雖無」下，答。破壞之相順涅槃樂，即與法緣慈義相應，況復涅槃樂中之極，故知且以法緣慈答。此因通難此無漏定似於涅槃，故權立法緣。法緣應在二乘境中。「問：慈緣眾生」等者，重問意者，二義相違云何相發？答意者，定法難思，但須深信。大乘尚得諸禪俱發，今但慈心與不淨禪更互相發，未足為妨。「慈定亦能」下，重作莊嚴義釋。何但直爾相發而已，二種更互慈定益美。慈心既爾，悲喜亦然。「或互相發」此之四字，明大小不淨發於慈心，今文存略。云相發者，語雖兼前，此文正明不淨發慈。「餘三無量心準慈可知」者，例餘三心準慈心說。又《婆沙》「問：四無量中何心勝耶？答：捨心最勝。」《大經》十四亦名四等。四等從心、無量從境，境既無量慈亦無差，等心對四故云四等。「若四無量」下，判漏無漏，即從所附以判漏等。「因緣不同」等者，明慈定所依，依因何禪而發慈定？所用既多，慈亦無量，故云「百千不可稱說」。次譬者，非但直言有漏等異，於一一禪、一一地、一一品、一一功德，支相味殊，不可具說，故以欲界依正為譬。譬中又為二番不同，初譬法體深廣、次譬法妙難信。初譬如文。次合中，初正合慈、次兼合四。次釋合，如文。次譬，有法、有喻、有合。譬云「山左」等者，如太華已東名為左兒，不識京畿珍羞之味。有作「修」字者，非也。羞者，《周禮》注云「備百物曰薦，置滋味曰羞。」珍者，明滋味中之貴者。「井鼃」等者。井字應中心著點，四邊像欄中點像瓶，堯臣伯益造也。世云市井者，因井造市，故云市井。今但云井，井中所居欲非海族。鼃者，小蝦蟇也。言「海若」者，海神名也。非者，斥也，欲斥海陜而衒井寬。

Next, explaining the samādhi of benevolence (maitrī). First, briefly distinguish what comes before and after; next, properly explain that which is manifested. As for the statement "through skilful cultivation, one attains understanding", this explains manifestation by relying on cultivation. Cultivating in accord with the teaching is therefore called "skilful"; when the cultivation is accomplished, it is called "attaining understanding". As for "the objects of focus are three", these are enemies, relatives, and neutral persons; in terms of extent, this is expansive and immeasurable. Focusing on these three kinds of persons and extending to the ten directions to cause them to attain supreme joy is precisely the mark of the accomplishment of the mind of benevolence. The *Vibhāṣā* states: "Enemies and relatives each have three grades; neutral persons constitute one grade." The meaning in the "Pure Practices" chapter of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* is largely the same. Both texts, sūtra and treatise, each have the marks of cultivation. The *Chanmen* (*Gate of Dhyāna*) also explains the method of cultivation, which means that when first cultivating, one causes superior relatives to attain inferior joy; next cultivating, one causes superior relatives to attain middling joy and middling relatives to attain inferior joy. Next cultivating, one causes superior relatives to attain superior joy, middling relatives to attain middling joy, and inferior relatives to attain inferior joy. Next cultivating, one causes middling relatives to attain superior joy, inferior relatives to attain middling joy, and neutral persons to attain inferior joy. Next cultivating, one causes inferior relatives to attain superior joy, neutral persons to attain middling joy, and inferior enemies to attain inferior joy. Next cultivating, one causes neutral persons to attain superior joy, inferior enemies to attain middling joy, and middling enemies to attain inferior joy. Next cultivating, one causes inferior enemies to attain superior joy, middling enemies to attain middling joy, and superior enemies to attain inferior joy. Next cultivating, one causes middling enemies to attain superior joy and superior enemies to attain middling joy. Next cultivating, one causes superior enemies to attain superior joy. This is called the mark of the accomplishment of cultivating benevolence. The two minds of compassion and sympathetic joy are also like this. If cultivating the mind of equanimity, one begins from neutral persons; if one were first to let go of relatives, one might give rise to affectionate clinging, and if one were first to let go of enemies, one might give rise to anger; therefore one must first let go of neutral persons, because between enemies and relatives, enemies are easier to let go of. Next one lets go of enemies, and among enemies, first the superior, next the middling, and next the inferior. Next one lets go of relatives, first the inferior, next the middling, and next the superior. If the mind of equanimity is accomplished, it is equal and without differentiation. Since the cultivation is not equal, one can know by analogy how it manifests. Question: What kind of person cannot cultivate the four immeasurables? Answer: There are two kinds of persons: those who seek faults in others cannot cultivate them, while those who do not seek faults can cultivate them. Fault-seeking persons seek faults even in an arhat. Those who seek goodness in others can cultivate them; those who seek goodness seek goodness even in an icchantika: though it is absent in the present, it may exist in the past or future. This characteristic is explained in detail in the *Vibhāṣā*. As for "expansive and immeasurable" and so forth, this relates to the three kinds of persons, as in the text. Even if the three kinds of persons are pervaded, if the spatial locations are not yet pervaded, it is not called accomplishment; hence it also relates to directions. Thus the *Vibhāṣā* says: "Does one take a single sentient being as the object of focus, or many sentient beings? Answer: At the time of initial cultivation, one focuses on many sentient beings; at the time of accomplishment, it is either one or many. The same applies to spatial locations." Fascicle 21 of the *Dazhidulun* explains the marks of cultivation extensively. As for "hidden" and so forth: if relying on the fundamental [dhyānas], both internal and external are hidden, or external is hidden while internal is not hidden; otherwise, both internal and external are unhidden. From "causes and conditions" onward, they are judged by analogy with this. From "if first" onward, explains mutual manifestation with the various dhyānas. First, it explains the manifestation of the first dhyāna, first indicating the sequence, and next explaining the manifestation of the five factors. In explaining the factor of contemplation (vicāra), where it says "or attains the joy among humans and in the heavens" and so forth: the *Vibhāṣā* asks, "Question: What realm's joy does one bestow upon sentient beings? Answer: Some say one bestows the joy of the third dhyāna, because it is supreme among joys. Some say one bestows the joy of the four requisites, because they have already experienced it. Some say one bestows all joys of places they have previously traveled, contemplating so as to cause them to attain them upon reaching their dwellings." *Yu* (愉) also means joy; the *Analects* says: "He was joyful (yuyu) indeed." As for "this is named identically with the fundamental" and so forth, it distinguishes sameness and difference. The names of the factors and the names of the touches are all identical with the fundamental; the fundamental is like water, and benevolence is like mixing it with honey. As for "if it manifests" and so forth, this also relies on cultivation to distinguish function. Brahmā-subjects are the Brahmā-pāriṣadya; Brahmā-ministers are the Brahmā-purohita. The *Vibhāṣā* asks: "Question: What is Brahmic merit? Answer: Some say it is the merit of all sentient beings. Some say it is the merit of a wheel-turning king. Some say it is the merit of Śakra. Some say it is the merit of Maheśvara. Some say it is the merit of Brahmā. Some say it is the merit of all persons except those close to buddhas and bodhisattvas. Some say it is the merit of King Brahmā entreating the Buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma. The commentator concludes: Brahmic merit is immeasurable; all those stated above are merely praises." Some say four things attain Brahmic merit: first, erecting a stūpa with relics where no stūpa has yet been erected; second, erecting a saṅghārāma where no saṅghārāma exists; third, reconciling a schism in the Saṅgha; fourth, cultivating the four immeasurables. Hence the *Vimalakīrti* says: "Cultivating the four immeasurables opens the path to the Brahmā heaven." Next it explains the first dhyāna manifesting the samādhi of benevolence, and next explains the samādhi of benevolence manifesting the second, third, and fourth dhyānas, as in the text. Next, from "yet the mind of benevolence" onward, judges greater and lesser [vehicles]. As for "the Buddha at times" and so forth, the *Vibhāṣā* says: "The Buddha taught that the reward of the samādhi of benevolence does not exceed the Śubhakṛtsna [Heaven], up to the mind of equanimity not exceeding the sphere of nothingness." This is detailed as in the present text. In the Hīnayāna of the *Vibhāṣā*, it even reaches the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; how much more so in the bodhisattva's Dharma? One should know that the Hīnayāna possesses both explanations. From "the bodhisattva is constantly accompanied by benevolence and compassion" onward, it belongs strictly to the Mahāyāna, where every single ground has the four immeasurables. In the *Vibhāṣā* it is also asked: "Question: Why are the remaining three immeasurable minds in the formless realm? Answer: Only Maitreya knows this matter." One should know that the teaching is provisional and spoken to suit faculties, not yet exhausting the real principle; hence it is said to be "provisional for the moment". From "if one first attains the fundamental" onward, explains the second, third, and fourth dhyānas manifesting the samādhi of benevolence. Only saying "fundamental" is an abbreviation. In full, one should clarify the stages and determine greater and lesser, and so forth. From "if relying on the superior [breathing meditation]" onward, next explains manifesting the samādhi of benevolence in relation to fundamental pure dhyānas. As for "the samādhi relied upon is of itself one side" and so forth: since from the superior contemplation onward there is contemplative wisdom distinct from benevolence, and it also arises together with or before and after the mind of benevolence, it is called "being independent on one side". As for "the foulness takes the mark of disintegration of sentient beings" and so forth, this is a question: contemplating their disintegration is contrary to attaining joy, so the samādhi of benevolence would not be accomplished. From "although there is no" onward, this is the answer. The mark of disintegration accords with the joy of nirvāṇa, which is compatible with the meaning of benevolence with phenomena as object (dharma-ālambana-maitrī); how much more so when nirvāṇa is the ultimate of joys, so one should know that this is answered provisionally with benevolence with phenomena as object. Because of resolving this difficulty, this uncontaminated samādhi resembles nirvāṇa; hence benevolence with phenomena is provisionally established. Benevolence with phenomena should be in the realm of the two vehicles. As for "Question: Benevolence takes sentient beings as object" and so forth, the intention of the second question is: the two meanings are contradictory, so how can they manifest each other? The intention of the answer is: the dharma of samādhi is inconceivable; one must simply have deep faith. In the Mahāyāna, all dhyānas can even manifest together; now that only the mind of benevolence and the foul dhyāna manifest each other, it is hardly an obstacle. From "the samādhi of benevolence can also" onward, this re-explains through the meaning of adornment: not only do they simply manifest each other, but the two alternate to make the samādhi of benevolence even more exquisite. The mind of benevolence being so, compassion and sympathetic joy are also like this. The four characters "or mutually manifest each other" explain the greater and lesser foulness manifesting the mind of benevolence; the present text abbreviates this. Saying "mutually manifest", although the wording includes what came before, the present text properly explains foulness manifesting benevolence. As for "the other three immeasurable minds are to be understood by analogy with benevolence", it models the remaining three minds upon the explanation of the mind of benevolence. Furthermore, the *Vibhāṣā* asks: "Question: Among the four immeasurables, which mind is supreme? Answer: The mind of equanimity is supreme." Chapter 14 of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* also names them the "four equalities". "Four equalities" is derived from the mind, while "immeasurable" is derived from the objects; since the objects are immeasurable, benevolence is also without differentiation; the equal mind corresponds to the four, hence they are called the four equalities. From "if the four immeasurables" onward, judges contaminated and uncontaminated; that is, judging contaminated and so forth according to what they attach to. As for "the causes and conditions are different" and so forth, it explains that upon which the samādhi of benevolence relies: relying upon the causes of which dhyāna does the samādhi of benevolence manifest? Since what is used is manifold, benevolence is also immeasurable; hence it says "hundreds of thousands beyond reckoning". Next, regarding the metaphors: not only is there the distinction of contaminated and so forth directly stated, but in every single dhyāna, every single ground, every single grade, and every single merit, the characteristics of the factors and the tastes differ beyond complete expression; hence they are illustrated by the dependent and primary [retribution] of the desire realm. Within the metaphors, there are again two different rounds: first, metaphorising the deep and broad nature of the dharma-essence; second, metaphorising that the dharma is subtle and difficult to believe. The first metaphor is as in the text. Next, in the application: first, it properly applies to benevolence; next, it also applies to the four. Next, the explanation of the application is as in the text. Next, the metaphor has the dharma, the illustration, and the application. In the metaphor, as for "east of the mountains (shan-zuo)" and so forth, just as east of Mount Hua is called "zuo-er", unaware of the flavors of the rare delicacies of the capital region. Those who write the character *xiu* (修) are mistaken. As for delicacies (*xiu* 羞), the commentary to the *Rites of Zhou* states: "Providing the hundred foodstuffs is called *jian*; setting out flavors is called *xiu*." Rare (*zhen* 珍) clarifies the most precious among flavors. As for "frog in a well" and so forth: the character *jing* (井) should have a dot in the center, with the four sides resembling the curb and the center dot resembling the bucket; it was made by Boyi, a minister of Emperor Yao. When people say *shijing* (market-well / marketplace), it is because markets were established based on wells, hence called *shijing*. Now it only says "well"; the dweller in a well wishes to deny the oceanic species. A frog (*wa* 鼃) is a small toad. As for "Hairuo", it is the name of the ocean god. "To deny" (*fei*) means to disparage: wishing to disparage the narrowness of the ocean and boast of the broadness of the well.