翻譯名義集 4.51

4.51

【三昧】此云調直定，又云正定，亦云正受。圭峯疏云：「不受諸受，名為正受。」遠法師云：「夫稱三昧者何？專思寂想之謂也。思專則志一不分，想寂則氣虛神朗；氣虛則智恬其照，神朗則無幽不徹。斯二乃是自然之玄符，用一而致用也。是故靖恭閑宇，而感物通靈，御心惟正，動必入微。此假修以凝神，積功以移性（云云）。」又諸三昧，名質甚多，功高易進，念佛為先。故天台止觀略明四種：一常坐，二常行，三半行半坐，四非行非坐。一、常坐者，出《文殊說》、《文殊問》兩般若，名為一行三昧。身開常坐，遮行住臥，或可處眾，獨居彌善。居一靜室，安一繩床，九十日為一期，結加正坐。二、常行，出《般舟三昧》。唯專行旋，九十日為期。三、半行半坐。方等云：旋百二十匝，却坐思惟。《法華》云：「其人若行、若立，讀誦此經；是人若坐，思惟此經。」四、非行非坐，實通行坐，南岳呼為隨自意。就此為四：一約諸經，二約諸善，三約諸惡，四約諸無記。《輔行》云：「所言常坐，乃至非行非坐者，約身儀為名。若從法為名者，常坐名一行，常行名佛立，半行半坐名方等法華，非行非坐名隨自意等。」然此四種三昧，先達以事理二觀，分四三昧，義亦殊途。四明法師因奉先清師，謂光明玄十種三法，純明理觀，不須附事而觀。法智破曰：「荊溪云：『如常坐等，或唯觀理，隨自意從末從事。』既云純明理觀，乃是三種三昧，專令於識陰修十乘也。此文則顯四明以上三三昧為理觀。又《指要》云：『隨自意中，修唯識觀。觀於起心，即約變造事用而說。』此文則四明以第四三昧修事觀也。」問：「準《妙宗》云：『常坐一種，縱直觀理。餘三三昧，豈不兼事？』據此，則顯四明，以餘三三昧修事觀耶？」今謂此文，非是正分，占察事理二觀，蓋為孤山定《義例》三種觀法，皆是理觀。十六觀法，乃是事觀。遂不以《義例》三種收十六觀，四明遂約四種三昧，無不歷事觀三諦理。乃顯從行觀中，尚有歷事之相，此非占察事觀也。問：「如《妙宗》云：『若常坐等，直於三道之事。而觀三諦，不兼修善，及縱惡事，故受理名。據此莫顯四明唯許常坐為理觀耶？』」今謂餘三三昧，歷外境事，故受事名（非占察事觀）。常坐三昧，唯觀內心，故受理名（非占察理觀）。問：「第四三昧，橫開四科，一諸經行法，此須具收占察二觀。何故四明定隨自意唯修事觀？」答：「占察事理二觀，前三三昧，既修理觀，是故第四，唯修事觀。或云常坐是理，餘三是事。謂常行歷念佛事，方等歷持呪事，隨自意歷三性事。或云上三三昧，並諸經行法，通理通事，唯縱任三性，專修事觀。準荊溪云：『如常坐等，或唯觀理。』則顯上三三昧，通修事觀。此乃由昧二觀之相，遂迷四種之行。」或問止觀，正宗法華，何故行相，卻通眾經？答：「別明行相，雖通眾典，行者造修，開歸法華。故《義例》云：『是知四種三昧，皆依實相，實相是安樂之法，四緣是安樂之行。證實相已，所獲依報，名為大果。起教，只是為令眾生開示悟入；指歸，秖是歸於三軌妙法祕藏。所以始末皆依《法華》，即法華三昧之妙行也。』」

[Samādhi] Here this is translated as 'harmonized and upright concentration', also called 'correct concentration', and also called 'correct reception'. Guifeng's commentary states: 'Not receiving any perceptions is called correct reception.' Master Yuan says: 'What is called samādhi? It refers to concentrated thought and tranquil contemplation. When thought is concentrated, the will is unified and undivided; when contemplation is tranquil, the breath is empty and the spirit is luminous. When the breath is empty, wisdom is calm in its illumination; when the spirit is luminous, there is no obscurity it does not penetrate. These two are indeed natural, profound tallyings, using the one to realize function. Therefore, resting reverently in quiet chambers, one resonates with things and connects to the spirit; when regulating the mind only with rectitude, whatever stirs will penetrate subtlety. This relies on cultivation to coalesce the spirit, and amasses effort to transform nature (and so forth).' Furthermore, the names and essences of the various samādhis are extremely numerous; for great efficacy and easy progress, buddhānusmṛti is foremost. Therefore, Tiantai's *Zhiguan* briefly explains four kinds: first, constantly sitting; second, constantly walking; third, half walking and half sitting; fourth, neither walking nor sitting. First, 'constantly sitting' derives from the two Prajñā [sūtras], *Mañjuśrī's Exposition* and *Mañjuśrī's Inquiries*, and is called the single-practice samādhi. The body is permitted only to sit constantly, preventing walking, standing, and lying down; one may reside in an assembly, but dwelling alone is even better. Dwelling in a quiet room, arranging a single rope bed, taking ninety days as one period, one sits cross-legged in upright posture. Second, 'constantly walking' derives from the *Pratyutpanna-samādhi [Sūtra]*. One exclusively walks and circumambulates, taking ninety days as a period. Third, 'half walking and half sitting'. The *Vaipulya* states: circumambulate one hundred and twenty circuits, then sit back down and contemplate. The *Lotus* states: 'Whether that person walks or stands, he reads and recites this sūtra; if that person sits, he contemplates this sūtra.' Fourth, 'neither walking nor sitting', which actually encompasses both walking and sitting, called by Nanyue 'following one's own inclination'. In regard to this, there are four: first, in terms of various sūtras; second, in terms of various wholesome [states]; third, in terms of various unwholesome [states]; fourth, in terms of various neutral [states]. The *Fuxing* states: 'The so-called constantly sitting, down to neither walking nor sitting, are named according to bodily deportment. If named from the Dharma, constantly sitting is called single-practice; constantly walking is called the standing Buddha; half walking and half sitting is called Vaipulya and Lotus; neither walking nor sitting is called following one's own inclination, and so forth.' However, regarding these four kinds of samādhi, earlier masters divided the four samādhis by means of the two contemplations of phenomena and principle, and their interpretations also took different paths. Master Siming, following Master Fengxian Qing, considered the ten kinds of three dharmas in the *Guangming Xuan* to purely explain contemplation of principle, without needing to attach to phenomena to contemplate. Fazhi refuted this, saying: 'Jingxi states: "As with constantly sitting, etc., one may exclusively contemplate principle; following one's own inclination follows the secondary and follows phenomena." Since it is said to purely explain contemplation of principle, this means that in the three kinds of samādhi, one exclusively cultivates the ten vehicles in relation to the aggregate of consciousness. This text shows that Siming took the above three samādhis to be contemplation of principle. Moreover, the *Zhiyao* says: "In following one's own inclination, one cultivates the contemplation of consciousness-only. Contemplating the arising mind is spoken in terms of transformation and creation in practical application." This text shows that Siming used the fourth samādhi to cultivate the contemplation of phenomena.' Question: 'According to *Miaozong*, which says: "Even if the single kind of constantly sitting directly contemplates principle, how could the other three samādhis not combine with phenomena?" According to this, does it show that Siming cultivated the contemplation of phenomena with the other three samādhis?' Now I say: this text does not properly distinguish the two contemplations of phenomena and principle in the *Zhancha [jing]*. It is because Gushan determined the three methods of contemplation in the *Yili* to all be contemplation of principle, while the sixteen methods of contemplation are contemplation of phenomena. He thus did not use the three methods of the *Yili* to subsume the sixteen contemplations. Siming then, in terms of the four kinds of samādhi, held that there was none that did not traverse phenomena to contemplate the principle of the three truths. This shows that within contemplation through practice, there are still marks of traversing phenomena; this is not the contemplation of phenomena of the *Zhancha*. Question: 'As *Miaozong* states: "If in constantly sitting, etc., one directly contemplates the three truths upon the phenomena of the three paths, without combining cultivation of the wholesome or indulging unwholesome phenomena, it receives the name of principle." According to this, does it not show that Siming only permitted constantly sitting to be contemplation of principle?' Now I say: because the other three samādhis traverse external objective phenomena, they receive the name of phenomena (not the contemplation of phenomena of the *Zhancha*). Because the constantly sitting samādhi exclusively contemplates the internal mind, it receives the name of principle (not the contemplation of principle of the *Zhancha*). Question: 'The fourth samādhi horizontally opens four categories, the first being the ritual practices of the various sūtras, which must fully include both contemplations of the *Zhancha*. Why did Siming determine that following one's own inclination exclusively cultivates the contemplation of phenomena?' Answer: 'Regarding the two contemplations of phenomena and principle in the *Zhancha*, since the first three samādhis cultivate the contemplation of principle, the fourth exclusively cultivates the contemplation of phenomena. Or it is said that constantly sitting is principle, and the other three are phenomena: that constantly walking traverses the phenomenon of mindfulness of the Buddha, Vaipulya traverses the phenomenon of holding dhāraṇī, and following one's own inclination traverses the phenomena of the three natures. Or it is said that the upper three samādhis, together with the ritual practices of the various sūtras, pervade both principle and phenomena, and only indulging the three natures exclusively cultivates the contemplation of phenomena. According to Jingxi's statement: "As with constantly sitting, etc., one may exclusively contemplate principle," this shows that the upper three samādhis also cultivate the contemplation of phenomena. This arises from being confused about the characteristics of the two contemplations, and thus becoming lost regarding the four practices.' Someone asks: '*Zhiguan* takes the *Lotus* as its core; why then do its forms of practice encompass the various sūtras?' Answer: 'Although the specific explanation of the forms of practice encompasses the various scriptures, the practitioner's cultivation opens and returns to the *Lotus*. Therefore the *Yili* states: "Thus we know that the four kinds of samādhi all rely on true reality. True reality is the dharma of peaceful joy, and the four conditions are the practices of peaceful joy. Having realized true reality, the dependent retribution obtained is called the great fruit. Arising teachings are only to lead sentient beings to open, reveal, awaken, and enter; that to which they point and return is solely to return to the secret treasury of the three tracks of the wondrous Dharma. Therefore, from beginning to end, they all rely on the *Lotus*, which is the wondrous practice of the Lotus Samādhi."'