仁王經疏 1.28

1.28

所言聞者，自有二義：一依法相、二就唯識。依法相者，諸說不同。薩婆多宗，耳聞非識。法教論師，識聞非耳，《成實》亦同。譬喻論者，和合能聞，如《大婆娑》第十三說。今依大乘龍樹菩薩，自有兩釋：一耳聞非識、二和合能聞。如《智度論》雖有兩釋，和合為正，正釋聞中說和合故。依彌勒宗，自有三說：一云耳聞非識。《雜集論》云「耳界何相？謂能聞聲。」又《瑜伽》云「數於此聲至能聞故。一云識聞，非耳。」《佛地論》云「聞謂耳根發識聽受。」又《瑜伽釋》論云「聞謂聽聞，即是耳根發耳識，聞言教故。」又解：二論耳聞識非發識，耳根是聞體故。一云：二論和合能聞，根識和合是聞體故，故《雜集》云「問：為眼見色？為識等耶？答：非眼見色：亦非識等：以一切法無作用故。由有和合：假立為見。耳等亦爾。」廣說如彼。所以如是諸論異者，為顯聞聲最勝依故。《瑜伽》等說耳為聞，就分別義故。《佛地》等云識為聞，為顯諸法無作用故。《智度論》及《雜集》等，和合為聞。各據一義，互不相違。依唯識理以解聞者，自有二釋，故《佛地》云「有義如來慈悲本願增上緣力，聞者識上文義相生。此文義相，雖親依自善根力起，而就強緣，名為佛說。由耳根力，自心變現，故名我聞。」有義：聞者善根本願增上緣力，如來識上文義相生。此文義相，是佛利他善根所起，名為佛說。聞者識心雖不取得，然似彼相分明顯現，故名我聞。解云：《佛地》二師所說，初即那伽犀那，那伽此云龍、犀那云軍，即是龍軍論師也，不許佛果有色聲等。第二師義，許佛果中具色聲等，護法等宗皆依後釋。

Regarding the word “heard,” it has in itself two meanings: first, according to the characteristics of phenomena (dharmalakṣaṇa); second, with respect to consciousness-only (vijñaptimātra). Regarding the characteristics of phenomena, the various explanations differ. According to the Sarvāstivāda school, the ear hears, not consciousness. According to the master of the Dharmatrāta treatise, consciousness hears, not the ear; the *Satyasiddhi* is also the same. According to the Dārṣṭāntikas, it is a harmonious combination that can hear, as explained in the thirteenth fascicle of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. Now, according to Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna of the Mahāyāna, there are in themselves two explanations: first, the ear hears, not consciousness; second, a harmonious combination can hear. Although there are two explanations in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, the harmonious combination is correct, because when directly explaining “heard,” it speaks of harmonious combination. According to the school of Maitreya, there are in themselves three explanations: The first says that the ear hears, not consciousness. The *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: “What is the characteristic of the ear element? It refers to being able to hear sound.” Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: “Because it constantly reaches this sound, it is able to hear.” The second says that consciousness hears, not the ear. The *Buddhabhūmyupadeśa* says: “Hearing means that the ear faculty activates consciousness to listen and receive.” Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmivyākhyā* says: “Hearing means listening and hearing; that is, the ear faculty activates ear consciousness to hear spoken teachings.” Another interpretation: In these two treatises, the ear hears while consciousness does not activate; the ear faculty is the substance of hearing. The third says: In these two treatises, a harmonious combination can hear, because the harmonious combination of faculty and consciousness is the substance of hearing. Therefore, the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: “Question: Does the eye see form? Or does consciousness and so forth? Answer: The eye does not see form, nor does consciousness and so forth, because all dharmas lack an agent of action. Due to the presence of a harmonious combination, it is nominally designated as seeing. The ear and so forth are also like this.” It is extensively explained as in that text. The reason why these treatises differ in this way is to reveal the most supreme basis for hearing sounds. The *Yogācārabhūmi* and others state that the ear is hearing based on the meaning of differentiation. The *Buddhabhūmyupadeśa* and others say that consciousness is hearing to reveal that all dharmas lack an agent of action. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā*, and others state that the harmonious combination is hearing. Each is based on one perspective, so they do not contradict one another. Explaining “hearing” according to the principle of consciousness-only has in itself two explanations. Therefore, the *Buddhabhūmyupadeśa* says: “There is an opinion: By the empowering condition of the Tathāgata’s compassion and fundamental vows, images of the phrasing and meaning arise within the consciousness of the hearer. Although these images of phrasing and meaning directly arise based on the power of one’s own wholesome roots, yet in reference to the powerful condition, they are called the Buddha’s preaching. Through the power of the ear faculty, one’s own mind transforms and manifests them, and therefore it is called ‘I have heard.’” “There is an opinion: By the empowering condition of the hearer’s wholesome roots and fundamental vows, images of the phrasing and meaning arise upon the Tathāgata’s consciousness. These images of phrasing and meaning arise from the Buddha’s wholesome roots that benefit others, and are called the Buddha’s preaching. Although the consciousness and mind of the hearer does not grasp them, yet images resembling them clearly manifest, and therefore it is called ‘I have heard.’” Explanation: Regarding what the two masters in the *Buddhabhūmyupadeśa* said, the first is Nāgasena—nāga here means “dragon” and sena means “army,” which is the treatise master Longjun (Nāgasena)—who did not accept that the fruit of buddhahood possesses form, sound, and so forth. The position of the second master accepts that within the fruit of buddhahood form, sound, and so forth are fully present; the tradition of Dharmapāla and others all rely on the latter explanation.