Dharma · AI Companion

內等淨

adhyātma-saṃprasāda

禅定中内心澄净而信解平等。AI-generated

Type Mental factorDifficulty IntermediateTruth-level span outside the four-fold two-truths frameworkInitial AI estimate · evolves with use

A Contemporary ReadingAI-generated

What This Concept Is About

The three characters 内等净 (adhyātma-saṃprasāda, "inner serenity") read like a tongue-twister, but they actually describe a very specific moment—when your mind is no longer pushed along by one thought after another, no longer weighing or assessing anything, that state of "no longer stirring, yet all the clearer for it" is 内等净. It is the first of the four factors of the second dhyāna (the second stage within the four dhyānas and eight samādhis), followed in order by joy (prīti), bliss (sukha), and concentration (等持, samādhi).

This account comes from the *Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya* (阿毘达磨俱舍论, T1558, composed by Vasubandhu, translated by Xuanzang). In this treatise, the master Vasubandhu breaks down the shift a practitioner undergoes when moving from the first dhyāna into the second into individually recognizable "factors" (支, aṅga). He asks: What dharma is called inner serenity? He answers himself: In the second dhyāna, having already left behind the agitation of vitarka and vicāra, the mental continuum turns pure and clear—hence the name "inner serenity."

This definition contains several layers of meaning that must be examined one by one.

First Layer: What Exactly Are Vitarka and Vicāra?

To understand 内等净, one must first understand 寻 (vitarka, "applied thought") and 伺 (vicāra, "sustained examination"). These two terms have standard renderings in Xuanzang's translation workshop—they are not the vague concepts that other translations occasionally render as "awareness" or "reflection." is the mind's initial thrust toward an object—the "grasping" at the moment a thought surfaces; is the mind's sustained evaluation, chewing, and re-weighing of the object. What we today call "thinking about something" actually mixes both vitarka and vicāra: the impulse at the moment of thinking is vitarka; the continued circling in the mind is vicāra.

Neither of these is evil; the first dhyāna permits them. But Vasubandhu uses an extremely beautiful metaphor: if vitarka and vicāra are still stirring and the mental continuum is not yet pure and clear, then "如河有浪"—*it is like a river with waves.* The river water is originally clear, but as long as there are waves—even very gentle ripples—you cannot see the riverbed. Vitarka and vicāra are waves of this kind. They need not be violent; they simply keep the mind oscillating between "pushing" and "evaluating," never allowing it to settle into full clarity.

Second Layer: What Is "Inner Serenity"

Entering the second dhyāna, these two subtle agitations—vitarka and vicāra—come to rest, and the mental continuum (the flow of the mind) turns clear. But this "clarity" is not "empty of everything," not turning white, still, or numb. It carries one extremely important qualifier: inner equanimity (内等).

"等" (equanimity) means even, balanced, without rising or falling. "内" (inner) means turned inward, not rushing outward. Together: when vitarka and vicāra cease their outward agitation, the mind returns to itself and rests steadily within the same quality throughout—this is "inner equanimity." And because this steadiness is itself clear (not held in place by effort, but naturally transparent), it is called "inner serenity."

The treatise master also gives a negative characterization: if you feel you have "become still" but there is still a faint stirring of thought within—still observing yourself, asking "am I still?" still assessing "is this state correct?"—then that is not 内等净. Inner serenity is the state in which even this self-assessing wave is absent.

Third Layer: So What Exactly Is This "Thing"?

This is the most brilliant part of the concept. If it merely described "leaving vitarka and vicāra behind, the mind becoming clear," then 内等净 would seem to be only a description of a state, without its own "substance." But the treatise master Vasubandhu makes a crucial decision: 此即信根 — *this is precisely the faculty of faith.*

What does he mean? He holds that although the factors (支) of the four dhyānas have eighteen names, their underlying real entities (the actual mental factors, 心所法, caitta) number only eleven. 内等净 is not some new thing added on top of vitarka and vicāra; it is the mental factor of faith—the foremost of the five faculties, the "faculty of faith" (信根, śraddhendriya)—manifesting in its particular form at the station of the second dhyāna.

Why faith? Because being able to let go of vitarka and vicāra within absorption requires not technique but a deep trust: trust that vitarka and vicāra can be let go of, trust that a deeper clarity awaits beyond the letting go, trust that this "letting go" itself is the right direction. This faith itself possesses the characteristic of "purity" (the essence of faith is clarity, non-defilement, non-doubt), and at the station of the second dhyāna it also possesses the function of "inner equanimity" (no longer rushing outward in agitation)—hence it is called "inner serenity."

In other words: the very trust that enables you to let go of vitarka and vicāra is itself the clarity you find after letting go. This is an extremely profound circularity—faith itself is the fruit.

Fourth Layer: Why Is It First Among the Four Factors of the Second Dhyāna?

The four factors of the second dhyāna are 内等净, joy, bliss, and concentration. Many people would assume that "joy" and "bliss" are what the second dhyāna is really about—isn't meditation for the sake of joy and bliss? But the fact that Vasubandhu places 内等净 first shows precisely this: without this clear trust, joy and bliss are merely fluctuating emotions, not qualities of absorption. 内等净 is the ground; joy and bliss are the fruits that naturally grow from that ground; concentration is the power that allows the state to continue.

Note also: in the defiled dhyāna (染静虑, the second dhyāna polluted by defilements), there is no 内等净. The verse in the treatise states "无喜乐内净" — *no joy, bliss, or inner purity* — making clear that in the defiled second dhyāna there is no inner serenity, because the mind is disturbed and turbid with defilements and cannot become clear. That is to say, 内等净 is not something that can be feigned: as long as there is any disturbance of craving, aversion, or delusion, this clarity cannot arise.

Fifth Layer: How the Name Is Dissected

The treatise master further analyzes the name: the essence of faith is purity, hence the designation "净" (purity); it has left behind the agitation of vitarka and vicāra that rush outward in an unbroken stream, hence "内等" (inner equanimity); combined, it is "pure and inwardly equable"—hence "inner serenity." This is a very refined dissection of the term: each character has its own origin, and together they name the state itself.

The treatise also preserves a "differing view of other masters" (余师异说): some masters held that 内等净, concentration, vitarka, and vicāra all have no separate essence, but are merely exceptional modes of the mind that receive the names of mental factors. Vasubandhu explicitly states "非我所宗" — *this is not what I uphold.* He does not accept the reduction of all factors to "modes of the mind"; he insists on preserving the faculty of faith as a real entity. This is a typical example of the fine-grained analysis of the Abhidharma schools.


Walking Through It in Everyday Life

The theory is done, but this concept is not only useful in the meditation hall. Let us walk it, step by step, into contemporary life.

Scene One: The Mental Storm in the Dark Before Sleep

It is 11 p.m. You are lying down. Today's meeting did not go well, and one sentence from your boss keeps being chewed over in your mind. First you think "is he dissatisfied" (this is vitarka—the initial push), then you spiral finer: "what did that expression mean," "did I say something wrong," "should I go talk to him tomorrow" (this is vicāra—sustained evaluation, script-writing). You try to "stop thinking," but the more you try, the more anxious you become.

This entire process is vitarka and vicāra at work. It is not coarse fantasizing; it is a very subtle, very "reasonable" inner operation. And it has a signature: you keep oscillating between "pushing" (pushing toward the worry) and "evaluating" (assessing what to do).

What does 内等净 look like at this moment? It is not "falling asleep and thinking of nothing"—that is losing consciousness. It is not "thinking it through and no longer worrying"—that is just swapping one thought for another. It is this: suddenly, you are no longer pushing, no longer evaluating, and not even "requiring yourself to stop thinking." The mind simply rests there, calmly recognizing that now is now and tomorrow is tomorrow. You have not suppressed the worry; the waves of pushing and evaluating have simply subsided.

This "subsiding" is not technique—it is trust: trust that now can simply be now, and tomorrow's matters can wait until tomorrow. This trust itself (the faculty of faith) is precisely what allows the mind to settle into clarity. It does not rely on willpower forcing it; it is simply there.

Scene Two: The Stream of Consciousness on the Commuter Train

You are on the subway, scrolling through your phone without purpose. A thought arises: "I need to reply to that message" (vitarka), followed by "how should I phrase it" (vicāra). Another thought arises: "should I eat at that place tonight" (vitarka), followed by "but last time the wait was too long" (vicāra). Your attention jumps from this evaluation to that evaluation, never truly "present."

This entire sliding process is a typical display of vitarka and vicāra working in tandem. We think we are resting, but we never leave the operation of "pushing" and "evaluating." This is why many people are more exhausted after coming home from work than during work—the body has stopped, but the vitarka and vicāra in the mind have never stopped.

What does 内等净 mean here? It is not putting the phone down (that is willpower). It is a moment when your attention is no longer hooked by the next thought. You look out the window, or you look at the screen, but you do not evaluate, do not push forward, do not jump to the next thought. The mind rests steadily in the present. And this steadiness is not suppression—suppression is actually stronger vitarka and vicāra (searching for the thought "don't think," and monitoring whether you have successfully suppressed).

Scene Three: A Conversation in an Intimate Relationship

You and your partner are discussing a sensitive topic. They say something that makes you uncomfortable. Your mind immediately kicks in: "is he deliberately needling me" (vitarka), followed by "it was like this last time too," "he has never understood me" (vicāra). You do not interrupt them, but internally you are already script-writing, evaluating, preparing your counterattack.

This entire inner dialogue is the agitation of vitarka and vicāra. And it is very subtle—your outward appearance may still be listening, while internally it is a churning sea. This is the contemporary version of "如河有浪" — *like a river with waves.*

What does 内等净 look like at this moment? It is a very subtle instant: you hear the discomfort, but you do not immediately push toward "he is responsible" or "I need to counterattack." You also do not suppress your discomfort—you simply pause, not rushing to evaluate, not rushing to fit this sentence into your story. There is a space in the mind.

Where does this space come from? Not from cultivation, not from good temperament. It comes from trust—trust that this moment can go without reaction, trust that this sentence can for now just be this sentence, trust that you do not need to immediately know its meaning. This trust itself is 内等净. It is the faculty of faith manifesting at that station.

Scene Four: True Deep Work on the Job

You are writing an important report. Forty minutes have passed, and you have entered a state—external sounds gradually fade, you are no longer thinking about what to eat for lunch, no longer thinking about the email from earlier, no longer thinking about how your boss will judge this report. You are simply with the report, and the words flow out from under your hands.

This is the work version of 内等净. You have not suppressed stray thoughts; rather, the vitarka and vicāra (pushing toward the next thought, evaluating whether this action is correct) have weakened on their own. The mind rests steadily with the task at hand.

But note: this steadiness is not technique. If it were only technique, you could maintain it for a few minutes at most. This steadiness exists because you have a trust in this work—trust that it is worth doing, trust that you can do it, trust that you do not need to keep diverting attention to assess progress. This trust is the faculty of faith manifesting in daily life; we just do not usually call it "the faculty of faith"—we call it "flow" or "focus."

Where People Most Commonly Mis-map the Concept

Translating 寻 as "thinking" and 伺 as "pondering" is a common misreading. In fact, much of what we call "thinking" and "pondering" in the mind does not carry the agitation of vitarka and vicāra—for example, the comprehension that occurs when you are deeply absorbed in reading is already a deeper layer of mental activity, not vitarka and vicāra. Vitarka and vicāra refer specifically to that subtle restlessness carrying "push" and "evaluate," often wrapped in emotion (worry, expectation, dissatisfaction, craving). Much seemingly calm "thinking" is actually vitarka and vicāra operating underneath.

Treating 内等净 as "emptying the mind" or "going blank" is another misreading. 内等净 is the mind operating steadily, not shutting down. The mind remains luminous; it simply lacks the agitation of pushing and evaluating.

Treating 内等净 as a "technique" or "state" to be pursued is the most dangerous misreading—because pursuit itself is the strongest vitarka. Vasubandhu's decision reminds us: the thing that enables you to let go is itself the state you arrive at after letting go. You cannot grab it with effort.


Why Contemporary People Need It

Our era has two features that make 内等净, an ancient meditative factor, an urgent necessity.

One: The Brain That Is "Always Evaluating"

Contemporary neuroscientists observe that the human brain is not quiet in the so-called "resting state"—the Default Mode Network (DMN) continuously generates spontaneous, self-referential thought, including worrying about the future, recalling the past, and evaluating how others perceive us. Structurally, this corresponds strongly to the operation of vitarka and vicāra: we think we have clocked out, we are on vacation, we are lying flat, but the brain is constantly "pushing" and "evaluating." To be honest, however, this correspondence is a structural analogy, not a scientific proof of the Dharma. Neuroscience describes correlations in brain activity, while vitarka and vicāra are Buddhism's analytical level for describing the operation of consciousness—the two use different languages to describe different things. We can use the former to understand the "texture" of the latter, but we cannot say the former "proves" the latter.

The heart of the matter is: this constant evaluation does not make our lives better. It consumes enormous cognitive resources, generates anxiety, and prevents us from ever truly "being" in any present moment. What 内等净 points to is precisely—the ability to stop this constant evaluation without falling into blankness. For people bombarded by notifications, messages, ratings, and judgments, this is an urgent antidote.

One: The Loss of "Depth"

We find it increasingly difficult to enter deep work, deep conversation, deep companionship. It is not that time is insufficient; it is that the mind has been trained to be hooked by the next stimulus at any moment. Every interrupted attention carries with it a tiny vitarka (pushing toward the new stimulus) and vicāra (evaluating whether the stimulus is worth it). Cumulatively, people feel increasingly "floating" and "fragmented"—everything is done at the surface, never reaching the bottom.

The state described by 内等净—"no longer rushing outward, inwardly clear"—is the prerequisite for recovering depth. It does not teach us to focus more effortfully; it teaches us to recognize that what makes focus possible is not technique but trust. Trust that this thing is worth it, trust that one can be in it, trust that there is no need to constantly evaluate progress.

And a Third, Deeper Reason

More deeply, the fact that 内等净 is a manifestation of the faculty of faith reminds us: the deepest human need is not efficiency, not tranquility, not happiness, but a trust that can lay down evaluation. We have accumulated so many inner judgments—"this is how it should be," "that would be better." 内等净 points to: there can be a moment when no judgment is made, no evaluation is performed, and the mind is still steady, luminous, and worthy.

This ease of "being able to let go" is needed more in our age than in any other.


Common Misreadings and Clarifications

Misreading One: "Inner Serenity Is Some Special State in Meditation"

Many people pursue 内等净 as a lofty meditative attainment. But the treatise master Vasubandhu explicitly states: 内等净 is not a new real entity apart from vitarka and vicāra; it is the faculty of faith manifesting at the station of the second dhyāna. That is to say, the essence of 内等净 is faith—and faith is not only a matter of the meditation hall. It is already there in every moment when we can lay down evaluation and trust the present; we simply rarely recognize it.

Misreading Two: "Inner Serenity Is Blank Emptiness"

内等净 is absolutely not empty of everything. The mind remains luminous; it simply lacks the agitation of pushing and evaluating. Treating it as a blank mind or "thinking nothing" will instead fall into another kind of vitarka and vicāra—the very search for "don't think" thoughts is itself an agitation.

Misreading Three: "Vitarka and Vicāra Are Ordinary Thinking, So Inner Serenity Means Stopping All Thought"

This is the interpretive error modern people most easily make. Vitarka and vicāra are subtle restlessness carrying "push" and "evaluate," often wrapped in the disturbances of craving, aversion, and delusion. Ordinary understanding, reasoning, and learning are not necessarily vitarka and vicāra—they can be deeper layers of mental activity. 内等净 is not stopping all thought; it is stopping that continuous inner operation of pushing, evaluating, and script-writing. A mathematician in deep derivation may have no vitarka or vicāra at all; an anxious person "thinking things over" is full of them.

Misreading Four: "Joy and Bliss Are More Important Than Inner Serenity"

Many people, reading the four factors of the second dhyāna, are drawn to joy and bliss, thinking meditation is for the sake of joy and bliss. Vasubandhu placing 内等净 first is precisely a reminder: without this clear trust, joy and bliss are merely fluctuating emotions. 内等净 is the ground; joy and bliss are the fruit.

Misreading Five: "Inner Serenity Can Be Trained Through Technique"

This is the most dangerous misreading. We have already said that pursuit itself is the strongest vitarka. Vasubandhu's decision—此即信根, this is the faculty of faith—is precisely meant to make us recognize: the thing that enables you to let go is not technique; it is your inner trust. You cannot "practice" your way into trust through effort, but you can recognize again and again: this trust was always there.

Misreading Six: "Inner Serenity Is Merely Covered Over in the Defiled Dhyāna"

Some mistakenly think the defiled dhyāna also has 内等净, just covered by defilements and unable to manifest. But Vasubandhu's verse plainly states "无喜乐内净" — *no joy, bliss, or inner purity*: in the defiled second dhyāna there is no 内等净, because the mind is disturbed and turbid with defilements and cannot become clear. The "purity" in 内等净 is of the essence, not a matter of degree. When the mind is turbid, it is not there; it is not that it is there but covered. This is an important reminder: clear trust cannot coexist with defilement.

Misreading Seven: "Inner Serenity Is a Special Mental State"

Strictly speaking, it is not a "state" but the special manifestation of the mental factor "faculty of faith." Treating it as a "state" to pursue externalizes it into an object, reinforcing the subject–object dichotomy—and the subject–object dichotomy is itself the breeding ground of vitarka and vicāra. Vasubandhu's single phrase "此即信根" pulls us back from the framework of "pursuing some state" to the more fundamental direction of "recognizing faith."


One last word: 内等净 is a very quiet concept—it does not agitate, does not evaluate, does not show off. But its quietness has quality; it is the quietness of "inner equanimity," not the quietness of blankness. Contemporary people do not lack quiet moments; what they lack is a quietness that is held underneath by the faculty of faith—a quietness that does not require constantly evaluating whether one is in it.

If one day you can recognize a moment in yourself when you are not evaluating, not pushing, simply resting steadily in the present—in that moment, 内等净 is already there. It is not a place to go; it is a trust that has always been there.

Canonical EntryAI-generated

一、定义与核心要义

内等净(adhyātmasaṃprasāda)为第二静虑四支之首支,以「离寻伺鼓动、心相续澄净」为其体相;据《阿毘达磨俱舍论》之抉择,其实体即是信根(śraddhendriya),为信根于第二静虑位上之特殊显现。

二、主要阐述

(一)所属位次与支分结构

据《阿毘达磨俱舍论》(《阿毘達磨俱舍論》,世亲造、玄奘译),初静虑具寻、伺、喜、乐、等持五支;第二静虑则唯立四支——内等净、喜、乐、等持。内等净是替代初静虑中寻、伺二支而立为第二静虑的标帜。

(二)定义与譬喻

论中问「何法名内等净」,自答:第二静虑已远离寻伺的鼓动,心相续清净而转,故名内等净。反之,若仍有寻伺鼓动、相续不清净而转,则「如河有浪」。以「离寻伺鼓动、内心相续澄净」作为内等净的核心定义。

(三)实体归属的抉择

若仅作上述描述,内等净似无别体(只是离寻伺的状态描述);但论中许静虑支有十八名、十一实事,故论主抉择:「此即信根」。即证得第二静虑时,于定地离寻伺的可离性中有深信生起,此信即名内等净。亦即,内等净并非寻伺之外的别别实法,而是信根在第二静虑位上的特殊显现。

(四)术语解析(命名之由)

论主进一步分释名称:信的体相为净,故立「净」名;远离外驰均流的寻伺鼓动,故名「内等」;合而言之即「净而内等」,故名内等净。

(五)他师异说

有余师主张:内等净、等持、寻、伺皆无别体,心之分位殊胜亦得心所之名。论主表示虽有此理,但「非我所宗」。

(六)染静虑中的有无

颂文「无喜乐内净」明示:第二染静虑中无内等净,因其为烦恼所扰浊故,令心不能澄净。另有一类师说:初二染静虑中但无轻安(而非全无内等净),因其摄属大善故。两说并列。

三、不同部类与译本的表述差异

(一)论主与余师之异说

世亲论主以信根为内等净之实体,与之并列的「余师」则主张内等净、等持、寻、伺皆无别体,唯以心之分位殊胜得心所之名。此二说虽并行于论中,论主明示「非我所宗」者为余师之说。

(二)染静虑中有无之异说

论中颂文明确第二染静虑无内等净;然另一类师说则谓初二染静虑中唯无轻安,而非全无内等净,因其摄属大善故。此二说在论中并列,未作宗派裁决。

(三)译本用词差异

此论依玄奘译场术语标准:以「静虑」译 dhyāna(其他译本或作「禅」),以「等持」译 samādhi(其他或作「定」「三昧」),以「寻」「伺」译 vitarka、vicāra,以「信根」译 śraddhendriya。「内等净」即此处第二静虑支分之专名,与鸠摩罗什系译本用词或有出入,须依本论用词理解。

四、与相关概念的关系

(一)与寻伺的关系

第二静虑以内等净替代初静虑之寻、伺二支,意味已超越寻伺的躁动而入更为深定之境,内等净之名即由离寻伺鼓动而立。

(二)与信根的关系

内等净之实体即是信根,是信根在第二静虑位上的特殊显现,故又名「净而内等」。

(三)与等持、喜、乐的关系

第二静虑四支——内等净、喜、乐、等持——并列,内等净作为支分之首,与喜、乐、等持共成此静虑之结构。

五、代表性原文引用

《阿毘达磨俱舍论》(《阿毘達磨俱舍論》,世亲造、玄奘译)论第二静虑支分:「初静虑具寻、伺、喜、乐、等持五支;第二静虑则唯立四支——一内等净、二喜、三乐、四等持。」

《阿毘达磨俱舍论》(《阿毘達磨俱舍論》)释内等净之名义:「第二静虑已远离寻伺的鼓动,心相续清净而转,故名内等净。反之,若仍有寻伺鼓动、相续不清净而转,则如河有浪。」

《阿毘达磨俱舍论》(《阿毘達磨俱舍論》)抉择实体:「此即信根。」「信的体相为净,故立『净』名;远离外驰均流的寻伺鼓动,故名『内等』;合而言之即『净而内等』,故名内等净。」

《阿毘达磨俱舍论》(《阿毘達磨俱舍論》)论余师异说:「有余师主张:内等净、等持、寻、伺皆无别体,心之分位殊胜亦得心所之名。论主表示虽有此理,但非我所宗。」

《阿毘达磨俱舍论》(《阿毘達磨俱舍論》)颂文及释论染静虑中内等净之有无:「无喜乐内净——第二染静虑中无内等净,因其为烦恼所扰浊故,令心不能澄净。」另有一类师说:「初二染静虑中但无轻安,而非全无内等净,因其摄属大善故。」

By SutraAI-generated

阿毘達磨俱舍論T1558 · 毘曇部

《阿毘達磨俱舍論》以「靜慮支」體系安立「內等淨」一名,為第二靜慮四支之首。論先總列四靜慮支:初靜慮具尋、伺、喜、樂、等持五支;第二靜慮唯有內等淨、喜、樂、等持四支;第三靜慮具行捨、正念、正慧、受樂、等持五支;第四靜慮具行捨清淨、念清淨、非苦樂受、等持四支,十八支中「內等淨」獨屬第二靜慮。

論中設問「應說何法名內等淨」,而後正面釋義:「此定遠離尋伺鼓動,相續清淨轉,名為內等淨。」其核心義涵為:第二靜慮已離初靜慮之尋、伺二支,心不再受粗細分別之鼓動擾亂,故心相續得以清淨而轉。論更以喻顯之:「若有尋伺鼓動,相續不清淨轉,如河有浪。」河有浪則水不清,尋伺鼓動則心不淨;離此鼓動,即第二靜慮之清淨相。

然而論主進一步追問:若內等淨只是「離尋伺鼓動」之消極描述,則應無別體,如何能與其餘諸支合為十一實事?故論主斷言:「是故應說此即信根。」其理路為:行者證得第二靜慮時,「於定地亦可離中有深信生」,此深信即是信根;「信是淨相,故立淨名」——信以清淨為其行相,故得淨名。再釋「內等」二字:「離外均流,故名內等」——離於外散之均流(即尋伺向外攀緣之散動),心平等安住於內,故名內等。合而言之:「淨而內等,故立內等淨名。」此即本論對「內等淨」一詞之完整語源分析:淨=信根之清淨相,內等=離外散而平等住內,二者兼具方得此名。

論中並錄異說:「有餘師言:此內等淨等持尋伺皆無別體。」此派以為內等淨與等持、尋伺同體無別。論主破之:若無別體則心所應不成;雖可說「心分位殊亦得名心所」,然「非我所宗」,論主不取此說,堅持內等淨即信根,有其實體。

此外,論於辨染靜慮時指出:「第二染中無內等淨,彼為煩惱所擾濁故。」染污之第二靜慮既為煩惱擾濁,即不具內等淨,反顯清淨第二靜慮之所以得名,正在離煩惱擾濁、信根清淨內等。

總之,本論以「信根」為內等淨之實體,以「離尋伺鼓動、相續清淨轉」為其定義,以「如河有浪」為喻,以「信是淨相」「離外均流」釋名,並破無別體之異說,復以染靜慮中無此支反證其義。

瑜伽師地論T1579 · 瑜伽部

《瑜伽師地論》以「靜慮」稱四禪,以「支」稱各靜慮之組成要素,以「苾芻」稱比丘,用語自成一格。論中對「內等淨」之論述可歸為以下數端:

一、內等淨為第二靜慮四支之首。論中明列第二靜慮具四支:「一、內等淨,二、喜,三、樂,四、心一境性」,內等淨居四支第一位,為第二靜慮區別於初靜慮之關鍵所在。初靜慮五支為尋、伺、喜、樂、心一境性,至第二靜慮則尋伺止息,代之以內等淨。

二、內等淨之功能為「取所緣」。論中釋各靜慮支之作用時言:「第二靜慮中,內等淨為取所緣,三摩地為彼所依,餘如前說。」此謂內等淨在第二靜慮中承擔主動攀取、把握所緣境之作用,而三摩地(心一境性)則為其所依止之基礎。此與初靜慮以尋伺為取所緣、第三靜慮以捨念正知為取所緣、第四靜慮以捨淨念淨為取所緣形成對列。

三、內等淨以念、正知、捨三法為自性。論中設問「內等淨何法為自性」,答曰:「念、正知、捨為自性。」此為本論對內等淨最核心之界定——內等淨並非獨立於念、正知、捨之外另有一法,而是此三法在第二靜慮位中之總稱。

四、論中解釋何以第二靜慮特立「內等淨」之名。初靜慮中念、正知、捨本亦存在,然「由尋伺門之所引發,是故雖有而不宣說」;至第二靜慮,「由彼自性能有作業,又由踊躍心隨煩惱之所纏縛,是故顯示內等淨名」。意謂:初靜慮中此三法依附尋伺而起,不獨立彰名;第二靜慮中尋伺已息,此三法始以自性起用,且行者此時猶為喜踴躍之心隨煩惱所纏,須藉此三法令內心澄淨平等,故特立「內等淨」之名以顯其對治之功。至第三靜慮,心隨煩惱已遠,念、正知、捨各顯自相,不再以「內等淨」總稱;第四靜慮則轉為「捨清淨」「念清淨」,示最極清淨。

五、以山泉之喻顯示內等淨為喜樂生起之源。論中釋聖五支三摩地之第二喻時言:「山者,喻於無尋伺定。尖頂者,喻於第二靜慮無尋無伺,於所緣境一味勝解。泉者,喻於內等淨支。水軸者,謂水傍流出。水索者,謂水上涌出。此二種喻,如其次第,顯示喜、樂滋潤等言。」此喻以山中泉水喻內等淨,水之傍流與上涌分別喻喜與樂,顯示內等淨乃第二靜慮中喜樂滋潤遍滿之根源;而「尖頂」所喻之「於所緣境一味勝解」,則說明內等淨所成就者為對所緣境無間無別之平等勝解。

綜上,《瑜伽師地論》論內等淨,以「念、正知、捨為自性」為體,以「取所緣」為用,以「對治踊躍心隨煩惱」為立名之由,以「山泉」為喻顯其為喜樂之源,並將其置於四靜慮支之遞進脈絡中,明其唯屬第二靜慮之位,上不通於第三、第四之異名。

Related