止觀輔行傳弘決 9.37

9.37

次料簡中，先問中云「云何三念」者，依數人，生死是不相應行，屬法念處攝，云何通釋皆具四念者？故《毘曇》、《俱舍》十四不相應行，生死屬四相，故不相應行攝。及初番別釋中，生死支何以並云具三念處耶？謂身、心、法。答中意者，於前通釋恐義不了，故引《大經》釋成通義。經文既云「若生若滅皆具五陰」，即是生死各具四念。如《俱舍》中十二因緣，一一皆以五陰為體。不同經部，於別對二義一一支中並立五陰，即是從勝。雖借彼權文寄事相說，而分位別，並須約於一念十界。當知是約一念之心通別二對，一切色分即身念處、一切心分即三念處，故與陰入境中道品義同。「若通別」等者，指前通別二對結成四德，並須觀為不思議境。次「此四」下，結非枯榮中道佛性。次通例餘品，並如文。「觀根本」下，結成三空，在文可見，準前陰境可以意得，是故還約觀無明等三假以說。「不取法性四相」者，先列不受等四、次列新舊等四，即是不受新不著舊、不念內不分別外。新謂愛取、舊謂無明，內謂內心、外謂外境，於一念心十界法性亡此四相。「無依倚」等者，不依四句即四相。「無所見」者，不見四句、不見無句，不住亦爾。理本非修亦非造作，無因可修、無果可得。

Next, in the critical evaluation, the question asks first: "Why three stations of mindfulness?" According to the Sarvāstivādins, birth-and-death is an unassociated conditioned factor and is subsumed under the station of mindfulness of dharmas; why then does the shared explanation hold that each possesses all four stations of mindfulness? Thus, in the fourteen unassociated conditioned factors of the Abhidharma and the Kośa, birth-and-death belongs to the four marks [of conditioned phenomena] and is therefore subsumed under the unassociated formations. And in the first round of the distinctive explanation, why are the links of birth and death both said to possess three stations of mindfulness—namely body, mind, and dharmas? The intent of the reply is: fearing that the meaning in the preceding shared explanation was not thoroughly understood, it cites the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to establish the shared meaning. Since the sūtra text says "whether arising or ceasing, both fully possess the five aggregates," this means that birth and death each possess all four stations of mindfulness. Just as in the Kośa, the twelve links of dependent origination each take the five aggregates as their essence. Unlike the Sautrāntikas, who establish the five aggregates in each link within the two senses of the distinctive pairing, here it follows the predominant. Although it borrows those provisional texts and speaks relying on phenomenal aspects, their division of positions differs, and all must be referenced to the ten realms in a single moment of mind. One should know that, relying on the two pairings—shared and distinctive—in a single moment of mind, all physical parts are the station of mindfulness of the body, and all mental parts are the [other] three stations of mindfulness; hence its meaning is identical to the aids to the path in the aggregate-entry [object]. "If shared and distinctive" and so forth refers to the preceding two pairings, shared and distinctive, concluding them into the four virtues; all must be contemplated as the inconceivable object. Next, from "these four" onward, it concludes that they are the middle-way Buddha-nature, neither withering nor blooming. Next, the rest of the aids [to awakening] are generalized in like manner, all as in the text. From "contemplating the root" onward, it concludes into the three emptinesses, which can be seen in the text; this can be grasped by analogy with the preceding aggregate-object, and therefore it is again explained with reference to contemplating the three provisionalities of ignorance and so forth. "Not grasping the four marks of the dharma-nature": first it lists the four such as non-acceptance, and next it lists the four such as new and old—that is, not accepting the new, not clinging to the old, not being mindful of the internal, and not discriminating the external. "New" refers to craving and grasping; "old" refers to ignorance; "internal" refers to the internal mind; "external" refers to external objects. Within the dharma-nature of the ten realms in a single moment of mind, these four marks are eliminated. "Having nothing to rely on" and so forth means not relying on the four propositions, which are the four marks. "Having nothing that is seen" means not seeing the four propositions and not seeing the absence of propositions; not abiding is also like this. The principle is fundamentally uncultivated and uncreated: there is no cause that can be cultivated, and no fruit that can be attained.