大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 87.5

87.5

疏「第六普眼長者寄善現行」者，慧能顯發三諦之理，般若現前故。疏「無量有二」下，疏中先釋無量、後「知見」下釋知見。於中亦二：先別依《法華論》、後通即《般若論》。論云「如來悉知是諸眾生便足，何故復說如來悉見是諸眾生？若不說如來悉見是諸眾生，或謂如來以比智知。恐生如是心故。若爾，但言如來悉見是諸眾生便足，何故復說如來悉知是諸眾生？若不說如來悉知是諸眾生，或謂如來以肉眼等見。為防是，故說知見二語。」《功德施論》上卷云「何故知見俱說耶？為開顯一切智故。此復云何？貴於諸境界耶？然現覺非如比智，見煙知有火，不能照了，故諸相差別。亦非如肉眼，見麁近細種，遠處即不能知，但隨他說或如彼。」故《智論》二十九，明十八不共法解脫無減中，問曰：「解脫知見者，但應言知，何以復言見？答曰：言知言見事，得牢固言。如繩二合即為堅。復次若但說知，即不攝一切慧。如阿毘曇所說，慧有三種：有知非見、有見非知、有亦知亦見。有知非見者，盡智、無生智、五識相應知。有見非知者，八忍世間正見、五邪見。有亦知亦見者，餘師諸慧，若說知謂不攝見，若說見則不攝知。是故說知見則具足。復次如從人讀誦分別籌量是名知，自身得證是名見。譬如耳聞事尚有疑，是名知；親自目覩了了無疑，是名見。解脫中知見亦如是差別。」《瑜伽》八十六云「問：知見有何差別？答：照過去及以未來非現見境，此慧名知；照現在境，此慧名見。又所取為緣，此慧名知；能取為緣，此慧名見。又聞思所成，此慧名知；修所成者，此慧名見。又能斷煩惱，此慧名知，斷煩惱已能證解脫，此慧名見。又緣自相境，此慧名知；緣共相境，此慧名見。又尋求諸法，此慧名知；既尋求已伺察諸法，此慧名見。又緣無分別影像，此慧名知；緣有分別影像為境，此慧名見。又有色爾焰影像為緣，此慧名見；無色爾焰影像為緣，此慧名知。」釋曰：爾焰，為所緣也。《成實論》第十九〈見知品〉云「問曰：正見正知有何差別？答曰：即是一體無有差別。正見二種，世間、出世間。世間者，謂有罪福等。出世間者，謂能遍平等平等。諸諦正智亦爾。乃至問曰：經中說知者見者則同漏盡，有何差別？答曰：若智初破惑名知，入諸位已名為見。始觀名知，達了名見。有如是深淺等別。」《俱舍》二十六通明忍智見別。論云「前品初說依法忍法智，於後復說正見正知，為有忍非智耶？為有智非見耶？頌曰：聖慧忍非智，盡無生非見。餘二有漏慧，皆智六見性。」釋曰：初句及第三句餘二字，明無漏慧。有漏已下，明有漏慧也。聖慧忍非智者，聖慧忍謂見道中八忍也。忍非智性，決斷名智。忍起之時與非得俱，未成決斷，故不名智。盡無生非見者，盡無生智不名為見。推度名見，此之二智已息求心，非推度故，故不名見。餘二者，餘無漏慧，皆通知見二性，已斷疑故，推度性故。有漏慧皆智，六見性者，諸有漏慧皆智性攝，於中唯六亦是見性，謂身見等五及世間正見。如上聖慧及有漏慧，皆擇法故，並通性攝。《大婆沙》九十五，論云「應具分別見、智、慧三自性差別。云何為見？答：眼根五見、世俗正見、學無學見。問：何故眼根說名為見？答：由四事故，一賢聖說故、二世俗說故、三契經說故、四世現見故（云云）。問：何故此五說名為見？答以四事故。一觀視故，謂能觀視所應取境；二決定故，謂能決定所應取境；三堅執故，謂於自境堅固僻執，非聖道觀不能令捨；四深入故，謂於所緣銳利深入，如針墮泥。云世俗正見者，謂善意識相應慧，是見性故，說名為見。學見者，謂學有漏慧。無學見者，謂無學正見。此二俱是見性，故名為見。五見為境，如陰夜見色。世俗正見於境，如晴夜見色。有學見於境，如陰晝見色。無學見於境，如晴晝見色。云何為智？答：五識相應慧，除無漏慧，餘意識相應慧。五識相應慧有三種：一善、二染污、三無覆無記。餘論說諸見是智斷，應作四句：有見非智，謂眼根及無漏慧忍。有智非見，謂五識身相應慧、盡無生智。餘五見及世俗正見，餘意識相應有漏慧。有見亦智，謂五見世俗正見，除無漏忍及盡無生智。餘有漏慧，即學八智及無學正見。此無漏慧及前五見、世俗正見，皆具見智二種相故。」第三句攝有非見非智，謂除前相，相謂所有。所有若名若法，是前三句所表，皆名為相。除此餘法，為第四句義。次廣前來，一經頻有，無厭繁文。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The sixth, the elder Samantanetra (Puyan), is assigned to the practice of good manifestation," this is because wisdom can illuminate and reveal the principle of the three truths, so that prajñā appears before one. Next, regarding the Commentary's passage from "'Immeasurable' has two [aspects]" downward: in the Commentary, it first explains "immeasurable," and then from "knowledge and vision (zhijian)" downward, it explains knowledge and vision. In this there are also two parts: first, specifically relying on the Fahua lun (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-upadeśa), and later, generally identifying it with the Bore lun (Prajñāpāramitā-upadeśa). The treatise says: "It would suffice for the Tathāgata to 'know all these sentient beings completely'; why does it further say that the Tathāgata 'sees all these sentient beings completely'? If it did not say that the Tathāgata sees all these sentient beings completely, someone might think that the Tathāgata knows through inferential cognition. It is out of fear that such a thought might arise [that both are stated]. If so, it would suffice merely to say that the Tathāgata 'sees all these sentient beings completely'; why does it further say that the Tathāgata 'knows all these sentient beings completely'? If it did not say that the Tathāgata knows all these sentient beings completely, someone might think that the Tathāgata sees with the physical eye and the like. To prevent this, it speaks using the two words 'knows' and 'sees'." The upper fascicle of the Guṇaprabha-śāstra (Gongdeshi lun) says: "Why are 'knowing' and 'seeing' both stated? It is to reveal the omniscient knowledge. How so? Is it because [one is] prized above all objects? Direct perception is not like inferential cognition, which, seeing smoke, knows there is fire, but cannot clearly illuminate the distinct characteristics. Nor is it like the physical eye, which sees coarse and nearby kinds, but cannot know distant places, merely following the accounts of others or being like that." Therefore, in the twenty-ninth fascicle of the Da zhidu lun, clarifying the inexhaustibility of liberation among the eighteen unshared dharmas, it asks: "In the 'knowledge and vision of liberation' (vimukti-jñāna-darśana), one should only speak of 'knowledge'; why does it also say 'vision'? Answer: When one speaks of 'knowing' and speaks of 'seeing,' the matter becomes firm speech, just as when two cords are combined, they become strong. Furthermore, if one only spoke of knowledge, it would not subsume all wisdom. As the Abhidharma explains, wisdom has three kinds: there is knowing that is not seeing; there is seeing that is not knowing; and there is both knowing and seeing. 'Knowing that is not seeing' refers to the knowledge of destruction (kṣayajñāna), the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna), and the knowledge associated with the five consciousnesses. 'Seeing that is not knowing' refers to the eight patiences (kṣānti), mundane right view, and the five wrong views. 'Both knowing and seeing' refers to the other wisdoms of the masters. If one speaks of knowing, it is thought not to subsume seeing; if one speaks of seeing, it does not subsume knowing. Therefore, by speaking of both 'knowledge and vision', it is complete. Furthermore, such as reciting and discriminating, deliberating [what was learned] from others is called 'knowing'; attaining personal realization in one's own body is called 'seeing'. For example, when hearing something with one's ears there is still doubt, which is called 'knowing'; when witnessing it directly with one's own eyes, clear and without doubt, this is called 'seeing'. Knowledge and vision in liberation also have this distinction." The eighty-sixth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Question: What is the distinction between knowing and seeing? Answer: Illumining the past and future domains that are not directly visible, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; illumining present domains, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, having the grasped (grāhya) as condition, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; having the grasper (grāhaka) as condition, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, that which is produced by hearing and reflection, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; that which is produced by cultivation, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, being able to sever afflictions, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; having severed afflictions, being able to realize liberation, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, taking the specific characteristic (svalakṣaṇa) as domain, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; taking the common characteristic (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) as domain, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, seeking out dharmas, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; having sought them out, investigating dharmas, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, taking non-conceptual images as its object, this wisdom is called 'knowing'; taking conceptual images as its domain, this wisdom is called 'seeing'. Again, taking rupa-jñeya images as condition, this wisdom is called 'seeing'; taking non-rupa-jñeya images as condition, this wisdom is called 'knowing'." Explication: Jñeya (eryan) means the object. The nineteenth fascicle of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (Chengshi lun), the "Chapter on Seeing and Knowing," says: "Question: What is the distinction between right view and right knowledge? Answer: They are of one substance, without distinction. Right view is of two kinds: mundane and supramundane. The mundane refers to [acknowledging] the existence of sin, merit, and so on. The supramundane refers to being able to pervade equality and sameness. The right knowledge of the truths is likewise. … Up to: Question: The sūtras say that 'the one who knows and the one who sees' is equally one whose outflows are exhausted; what is the distinction? Answer: If wisdom first shatters delusion, it is called 'knowing'; having entered the stages, it is called 'seeing'. Initial contemplation is called 'knowing'; thorough comprehension is called 'seeing'. There are distinctions of depth and shallowness such as these." The twenty-sixth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa thoroughly clarifies the distinctions among patience, knowledge, and view. The treatise says: "In the beginning of the previous chapter, it first spoke of the patience of Dharma and knowledge of Dharma, and later it also spoke of right view and right knowledge. Is there patience that is not knowledge? Is there knowledge that is not view? The verse says: 'Noble wisdom: patience is not knowledge; destruction and non-arising are not view. The other two [supramundane] and defiled wisdoms are all knowledge; six are of the nature of view.'" Explication: The first line and the two characters "the other two" in the third line clarify undefiled wisdom. From "defiled" downward, it clarifies defiled wisdom. "Noble wisdom: patience is not knowledge" means that noble wisdom's patience refers to the eight patiences in the path of vision. Patience is not of the nature of knowledge, for decisive determination is called knowledge; at the time when patience arises, it is concomitant with non-possession (aprāpti) and has not yet formed decisive determination, hence it is not called knowledge. "Destruction and non-arising are not view" means that the knowledge of destruction and of non-arising are not called view; investigation is called view, and these two knowledges have already stilled the seeking mind and are not investigative, hence they are not called view. "The other two" means that the other undefiled wisdoms all share both the nature of knowledge and view, because doubt has already been severed and because they are investigative in nature. "Defiled wisdoms are all knowledge; six are of the nature of view" means that all defiled wisdoms are subsumed under the nature of knowledge; among them, only six are also of the nature of view, namely, the five such as view of identity (satkāyadṛṣṭi) and mundane right view. As stated above, both noble wisdom and defiled wisdom investigate dharmas, and are thus both subsumed under that nature. In the ninety-fifth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā, the treatise says: "One should fully distinguish the differences in the intrinsic nature of the three: view, knowledge, and wisdom. What is view? Answer: The eye faculty, the five views, mundane right view, and the views of the learner and the non-learner. Question: Why is the eye faculty called view? Answer: Due to four reasons: first, because the noble ones say so; second, because worldly convention says so; third, because the sūtras say so; fourth, because it is directly seen in the world (and so forth). Question: Why are these five views called view? Answer: Due to four reasons: first, because of looking, meaning being able to look at the domain to be grasped; second, because of determining, meaning being able to determine the domain to be grasped; third, because of firm adherence, meaning firmly and perversely clinging to one's own domain such that nothing but the noble path's contemplation can make one abandon it; fourth, because of deep penetration, meaning penetrating sharply and deeply into the intentional object, like a needle falling into mud. What is called 'mundane right view' refers to wisdom associated with wholesome mental consciousness; being of the nature of view, it is called view. 'Learner's view' refers to the learner's defiled wisdom. 'Non-learner's view' refers to the non-learner's right view. Because both of these are of the nature of view, they are called view. The five views regarding their domain are like seeing forms on a cloudy night. Mundane right view regarding its domain is like seeing forms on a clear night. A learner's view regarding its domain is like seeing forms on an overcast day. A non-learner's view regarding its domain is like seeing forms on a clear day. What is knowledge? Answer: Wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses, and wisdom associated with the mental consciousness other than undefiled wisdom. Wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses is of three kinds: first, wholesome; second, defiled; third, non-obscured indeterminate. Other treatises say that views are severed by knowledge. One should form a fourfold proposition: There is view that is not knowledge, namely, the eye faculty and the patience of undefiled wisdom. There is knowledge that is not view, namely, wisdom associated with the collection of five consciousnesses, and the knowledges of destruction and non-arising. The remaining five views and mundane right view are defiled wisdom associated with the remaining mental consciousness. There is that which is both view and knowledge, namely, the five views and mundane right view, excluding undefiled patience and the knowledges of destruction and non-arising. The other defiled wisdoms are the learner's eight knowledges and the non-learner's right view. This undefiled wisdom, as well as the former five views and mundane right view, all possess both characteristics of view and knowledge." The third line subsumes what is neither view nor knowledge, meaning excluding the previous characteristics. "Characteristics" refers to all that exists; whether names or dharmas, all that is expressed by the previous three lines are called characteristics. Dharmas remaining outside these constitute the meaning of the fourth proposition. The above has been elaborated in detail, for it frequently appears in this one sūtra; one should not tire of the voluminous text.