仁王經疏 1.28

1.28

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.