大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 5.89

5.89

論。以修世間至外道見故　釋曰。此顯事定之偽也。何以要由真如三昧方入種不退位中故。此名言以修等也。有義。世間即五停觀。諸禪謂即四靜慮定。三昧謂即四無色定。皆於定境而起味著。若不皆依我見而起。如次□是色無邊界。外道亦得故言共也。雖諸菩薩依而發通。及起諸道而為加行故。信修非可全棄。若修此等常依善友。若離所被即起邪見。有義。但取真如三昧。餘定皆名世間禪等。不須別配三界諸定。故新本言。以餘三昧皆是有相外道共等。由有相故而有四過。由起味著依我見起繫屬三界與外道共。依此經說。一切世間動不動法不安相等。若離善知識等者。新論說為不得值遇諸佛菩薩。以餘三昧未亡相故。非但無彼即起邪見。亦乃不得得遇佛等。故新舊論互舉一也。若爾寧入正性離生無不皆第四靜慮託最勝□入見道等。若以諸靜慮各有三種。一味等至。由定與彼愛相應故定得味名。二淨等至。與無貪等淨法相應定名為淨。三無漏等至。謂出世定。非愛所味著境故。般若等經唯識等論約淨無漏說。依四定登入菩薩正性離生。此據味定說。起味著依於我見外道共等。各據一義亦不相違。

Treatise: "Because cultivating worldly... [down to] ...views of non-Buddhists." Commentary: This reveals the counterfeit nature of the concentration of phenomena. Why must one rely on the samādhi of tathatā to enter the lineage of the stage of non-retrogression? For this reason, it says "because cultivating..." and so forth. One opinion holds: worldly refers to the five meditations for settling the mind; the dhyānas refer to the four dhyāna concentrations; samādhis refer to the four formless concentrations. All of them give rise to attachment to the flavor of the meditative state. If they do not all arise based on the view of self, as in order [...] is the formless realm. Non-Buddhists also attain them, hence it says "shared." Although bodhisattvas rely on them to generate supernormal powers and generate various paths as expedients, their faithful cultivation should not be entirely abandoned. If one cultivates these, one should always rely on good spiritual friends; if one departs from their protection, one will immediately give rise to heterodox views. Another opinion holds: taking only the samādhi of tathatā, all other concentrations are called worldly dhyānas and the like; there is no need to assign them separately to the various concentrations of the three realms. Therefore, the new version says: "Because other samādhis all possess marks, are shared with non-Buddhists," and so forth. Because they possess marks, there are four faults: because of giving rise to attachment to flavor, arising based on the view of self, being bound to the three realms, and being shared with non-Buddhists. Relying on this sūtra's explanation, all worldly moving and unmoving dharmas have unstable marks and so forth. "If one is separated from good spiritual friends..." and so forth: the new treatise expresses this as "failing to meet Buddhas and bodhisattvas." Because in other samādhis marks have not yet vanished, not only will one give rise to heterodox views without them, but one will also fail to encounter Buddhas and so forth; hence the new and old treatises each present one aspect. If so, how could one enter the certainty of rightness without all relying on the fourth dhyāna, depending on the supreme [...] to enter the path of seeing and so forth? If each of the dhyānas has three kinds: 1. Equipoise with flavor: because the concentration is associated with attachment, the concentration receives the name "flavor." 2. Pure equipoise: associated with pure dharmas such as non-greed, the concentration is named "pure." 3. Outflow-free equipoise: meaning supramundane concentration, because it is not an object savored and attached to by craving. Sūtras such as the *Prajñāpāramitā* and treatises such as the *Vijñaptimātratā* speak in terms of the pure and outflow-free, relying on the four concentrations to ascend and enter the bodhisattva's certainty of rightness. This text speaks according to concentrations with flavor: giving rise to attachment to flavor, arising based on the view of self, being shared with non-Buddhists, and so forth. Each is based on one meaning and they do not contradict each other.