法華玄贊義決 1.169

1.169

第一出體者，且肉天眼諸宗說異，廣如餘辨，繁不具述。但依大乘自宗所說，有以眼識種子名眼，故《二十唯識》云：識從自種生，似境相而轉，為成內外處，佛說彼為十。有以色種名為眼根，《觀所緣緣論》云：識上色功能名五根，應理功能與境色無始互為緣。有說能感眼根業種名為眼根，《成唯識》云：有避如前所說過難，明附彼執，復轉救言：識中業種名五色根。上之三說皆不正義。《對法》、《五蘊》、《瑜伽》等說：肉眼體性以四大種所造淨色而為眼根，於中三說：一云種子，一云現行，一云通二，此說為正。故《五蘊論》云：眼根云何？謂四大所造、眼識所依，以色為境故通種現。天眼根體以定所起四大所造淨色為性，是通果故。故無著菩薩《般若論》云：謂色攝故，色攝復二：謂法果、修果。法果即肉，修果即天。法是總名，即能感業；肉是此果。雖知總稱，肉獨得名，如說色處；修謂是定，因修所起名為修果。愚法二眼俱慧為性，緣真緣俗二境別故。故無著菩薩《般若論》云：第一義諦攝、世諦攝。又第一義智力故，世智不顛倒轉故，是一慧約取境用分，佛眼即前四眼為性，《智度論》云：譬如四河流至於海，總名天地故。前四眼在佛身中即名佛眼。若准無著菩薩《般若論》說，然佛後智名為佛眼，論云一切種一切應智攝。又云一切應智中一切種無功用智說名佛眼，《智度》說中據總出體，《般若論》中各別出體。又《般若論》中，前四據因，佛眼約果，不爾，佛果豈有業感異熟眼根？又佛後智豈由本智方不倒轉，任運起故。或同智論，總名佛眼，以智強故總名為智。若爾，何故云一切種應智中一切種無功用智？准此即是偏取後智名為佛眼。故前解勝。

Regarding the first, identifying the essence: For now, the various schools' explanations of the fleshly and divine eyes differ, as extensively distinguished elsewhere, and will not be fully stated here to avoid prolixity. Relying solely on the teachings of our own Mahāyāna school: some identify the seeds of the eye consciousness as the eye; hence the Viṃśikā says: "Consciousness arises from its own seed and evolves resembling the appearance of an object. In order to establish the internal and external āyatanas, the Buddha spoke of them as ten." Some identify seeds of matter as the cakṣur-indriya; the Ālambanaparīkṣā says: "The capacities for matter upon consciousness are named the five indriyas; it is logical that the capacities and the objective matter serve mutually as conditions from beginningless time." Some say that the karmic seeds capable of inducing the cakṣur-indriya are named the cakṣur-indriya; the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Some, avoiding the faults and objections stated previously, openly conform to their attachment, and shifting their defense, say: 'The karmic seeds within consciousness are named the five material indriyas.'" The above three explanations are all incorrect doctrines. The Abhidharmasamuccaya, Pañcaskandhaka, Yogācārabhūmi, and others state: the essential nature of the fleshly eye takes subtle matter produced by the caturmahābhūta as the cakṣur-indriya. Within this there are three explanations: one says seeds, one says actual states, and one says it encompasses both; this [last] explanation is correct. Hence the Pañcaskandhaka says: "What is the cakṣur-indriya? It is that which is produced by the four great elements, serves as the support of the eye consciousness, and takes matter as its object." Therefore it encompasses both seeds and actual states. The essential nature of the divine eye's indriya takes the subtle matter produced by the caturmahābhūta arisen from absorption as its nature, because it is the fruit of supernormal power. Hence Bodhisattva Asaṅga's Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa says: "Because it is subsumed under matter; matter's subsumption is further twofold: the fruit of dharma and the fruit of cultivation. The fruit of dharma is the fleshly, and the fruit of cultivation is the divine. 'Dharma' is a general designation, namely the karma capable of inducing [it]; 'flesh' is this fruit. Although known as a general designation, 'flesh' alone obtains the name, as when speaking of the rūpāyatana. 'Cultivation' refers to absorption; what arises due to cultivation is named the fruit of cultivation." The two eyes of those ignorant of the Dharma both have wisdom as their nature, because their two objective realms—cognizing the ultimate and cognizing the conventional—are distinct. Hence Bodhisattva Asaṅga's Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa says: "Subsumed under paramārtha-satya, and subsumed under saṃvṛti-satya. Furthermore, because of the power of the cognition of the ultimate, conventional cognition operates without distortion." Thus, it is a single wisdom divided according to its function in apprehending objects. The buddha eye takes the preceding four eyes as its nature; the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Just as when the four rivers reach the sea, they are collectively named heaven and earth." When the preceding four eyes are within the Buddha's person, they are simply named the buddha eye. If based on what Bodhisattva Asaṅga's Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa says, then the Buddha's subsequent cognition is named the buddha eye; that treatise states: "Subsumed under all-modes and all-responsive cognition." It also says: "Among all-responsive cognitions, the effortless cognition of all modes is spoken of as the buddha eye." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa identifies the essence based on the aggregate, whereas the Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa identifies the essence individually. Furthermore, in the Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, the first four are based on the cause, while the buddha eye is in terms of the fruit; otherwise, how could there be a cakṣur-indriya of karmically induced maturation in the fruit of buddhahood? Moreover, how could the Buddha's subsequent cognition depend upon fundamental cognition to not operate in a distorted manner, since it arises spontaneously? Alternatively, agreeing with the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it is collectively named the buddha eye, and because cognition is predominant, it is collectively named cognition. If so, why does it say: "Among all-responsive cognitions, the effortless cognition of all modes"? According to this, it specifically takes the subsequent cognition to name it the buddha eye. Therefore, the former explanation is superior.