釋禪波羅蜜次第法門 8.37

8.37

第三、明上品覺者，覺息無常為異者，此息為八相所遷，故無常。何等為八相？一、生；二、住；三、異；四、滅；五、生生；六、住住；七、異異；八、滅滅。此八種相遷法體別異非一，名為覺；覺息本空寂，無八相之異，名大覺。覺餘三大各有八相別異，名為覺；覺餘三大本來空寂，無八相之異，名大覺。覺心八相所遷，別異非一，名為覺；覺心本來空寂，無八相之異，名大覺。所以者何？若心即是八相，八相即是心者，則壞有餘相。所以者何？今息色亦即是八相，八相亦即是息色，八相無異故，息、色、心三事亦應無異。若爾，說心時，即應是說息、色。今實不爾，壞亂世諦相故。如人喚火，應得水來。說心一向即是息、色，過同於此。

Third, explaining the superior vitarka: as for perceiving the impermanence of the breath as differentiated, this breath is shifted by the eight characteristics, and is therefore impermanent. What are the eight characteristics? First, arising; second, abiding; third, change; fourth, cessation; fifth, arising of arising; sixth, abiding of abiding; seventh, change of change; eighth, cessation of cessation. Perceiving the essential substance of phenomena shifted by these eight kinds of characteristics as distinct and not one is called vitarka. Perceiving that the breath is fundamentally empty and tranquil, devoid of the differentiation of the eight characteristics, is called great vitarka. Perceiving that the other three great elements each have the differentiation of the eight characteristics is called vitarka. Perceiving that the other three great elements are fundamentally empty and tranquil, devoid of the differentiation of the eight characteristics, is called great vitarka. Perceiving that the mind is shifted by the eight characteristics, distinct and not one, is called vitarka. Perceiving that the mind is fundamentally empty and tranquil, devoid of the differentiation of the eight characteristics, is called great vitarka. Why is this? If the mind were identical to the eight characteristics, and the eight characteristics were identical to the mind, this would destroy any remaining characteristics. Why is this? Now the breath and form are also identical to the eight characteristics, and the eight characteristics are also identical to the breath and form; because the eight characteristics have no difference, the three matters of breath, form, and mind should also have no difference. If so, when speaking of the mind, one should thereby be speaking of the breath and form. Now in reality it is not so, because this would disrupt and confuse the characteristics of conventional truth. It would be like calling for fire and obtaining water. To speak of the mind as purely identical to breath and form incurs an error identical to this.