止觀輔行傳弘決 2.20

2.20

Next, in explaining neither walking nor sitting: first, the reason for obtaining its name is explained, which is due to being juxtaposed with the four phrases. From "In fact it universally pervades..." onward speaks in terms of the reality of practice. Next, Nanyue and the Dapin both explain establishing the name according to practice. Nanyue refers to his separate one-fascicle work entitled Samādhi of Following One's Own Mind, which comprehensively covers the four bodily postures, eating, speech, silence, and so forth. In that text, "It asks: From which sutra does this emerge? It answers: It emerges from the Śūraṅgama." Therefore, in explaining the various wholesome factors below, this text also specifically distinguishes the Śūraṅgama. The Dapin states: "If one attains this samādhi, it can turn all samādhis into outflow-free [states], just as one pound of mineral juice can transform a thousand pounds of copper into gold." Zhizhe also had a separately circulating Awakening-Mind Samādhi. From "Although there are..." onward synthesizes them: although there are three different names such as "neither walking nor sitting," it is simply the method of cultivating contemplation in the four postures. From "Now relying on..." onward explains again according to the teaching, because the name has a basis. From "The various numbers..." onward is a question: in the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sutras, the various mental factors are not just one in number; why take only consciousness/mind (yi) as the object of contemplation? From "Exhaustively tracing..." onward is the answer: since the various factors are numerous, they cannot be listed exhaustively; the mind (yi) is that which constructs them, so mentioning one encompasses all. From "Facing the object..." onward explains the different names of the mind. In contemplating the nature of the mind, the substance is the same while the names differ. Falling into mind, thought, and view gives rise to three distinctions, leading down to the subsequent "neither one nor different" and so forth. Question: If the nature of principle is like this, why establish three? As in the Vibhāṣā: "Question: What is the distinction among these three? Answer: They may be distinguished or not distinguished. When speaking of not being distinguished: 'mind' (citta) is just 'mind-consciousness' (manovijñāna). Just as fire is named flame, is also named blaze, and is also named burning fuel—it is merely a single mind with three differences. When speaking of being distinguished: the names are distinct. Some say: the past is named manas, the future is named citta, and the present is named vijñāna. Some say: in the realms it is named citta, in the sense-bases it is named manas, in the aggregates it is named vijñāna. Some say: varied form is named citta, as the six paths arise from mind; dependency is named manas, as the five faculties depend on manas; speech and conception are named vijñāna, as discernment belongs to vijñāna." The Abhidharmakośa states: "Accumulating and arising is named citta, deliberating is named manas, and discerning is named vijñāna." Even according to the Lesser Vehicle school, these three names are still merely different names for a single dharma. Therefore, it is now said that whether the three and the one are united or dispersed cannot be rigidly grasped; statements such as these are intended to briefly reject them for contemplation. Regarding "the inversions of thought, mind, and view": the Vibhāṣā states, "Taking the impermanent to be permanent is inversion of thought, inversion of mind, and inversion of view; taking the non-self, suffering, and impurity to be self, pleasure, and purity is likewise." Formerly it was said: among the four [mental] aggregates, three minds lack inversion and the consciousness-mind has inversion. Some say: the consciousness-mind lacks inversion, and the three minds have inversion, meaning perception has perceptual inversion, feeling has mental inversion, and mental formations have view inversion. Some say: it pervades the four minds, consciousness having mental inversion, perception and feeling having perceptual inversion, and mental formations having view inversion. Some say: the initial mind's false reckoning is called mental inversion, the subsequent mental thought taking shape is called perceptual inversion, and once perception is formed clinging to the external is called view inversion. The first explanation from the Vibhāṣā corresponds directly to the present text's "falling into the inversions of mind, thought, and view" to perceive three differences; clinging to them as permanent and so forth is not called awakening. Awakening to these inversions as neither identical nor different marks, contemplating only the dharma-nature—this alone is called awakening. From "One who is awakened clearly knows..." onward formally establishes the contemplation. When compared with one another, the three names make six phrases in all, which fully emerge from the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra. Since distinguishing the three names has been rejected as wrong, one should contemplate that their substance-nature is free from names and words. Therefore, in the six phrases, saying "not existent" refers to their identity in substance; saying "not non-existent" refers to their difference in names. Furthermore, one should not calculate identity or difference between name and substance; hence it concludes again: "Not being one, it speaks of three; not being three, it speaks of one." The remaining separate scatterings and so forth can be understood by following this. From "If one knows that names are not names..." onward: there are altogether six phrases of commentary giving a re-explanation. These six all doubly negate and doubly illuminate; provisional names and nature are both ungraspable. If one relies on this text to establish the threefold contemplation: "not one" establishes the three provisionals; "not three" speaks of the one emptiness; "names are not names, nature is not nature" is the middle. The remaining five follow this. If in this commentary one can penetrate the nature of the mind, only then is it the wondrous object of the inconceivable three truths. From "If one contemplates..." onward is the intent of establishing the name. The mind is capable of creating everything; hence merely contemplating the mind gathers all. From "If one breaks..." onward draws a parallel with breaking all defilements. This perfect contemplation not only contemplates the mind as the root of all dharmas, but also breaks ignorance, the source of all afflictions. Therefore, we know that not only does the mind gather all, but also the mind is itself ignorance. When ignorance is gone, where do the various afflictions abide? Hence it says "all are gone." From "Therefore, all..." onward gathers and abbreviates to conclude the name. Although there are various names and various mental factors, establishing now only the name "Awakening-Mind Samādhi" is truly due to this. From "Following one's own..." onward: since the two names are variant names for Awakening-Mind, although their names differ, their meaning is identical to Awakening-Mind.