大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 5.89

5.89

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.