大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 87.5

87.5

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.