金剛般若論會釋 3.19

3.19

Question: 'In the Dazhidu lun it says that the Dharma eye knows the faculties, inclinations, natures, etc. of sentient beings; this means it also knows others' minds. Why then does this sūtra, apart from the five eyes, separately state the cognition of others' minds?' Answer: 'In a general sense, with the Dharma eye, the Buddha also knows others' minds; the Buddha now mentions it separately because there is a distinct meaning. The Dazhidu lun decides that the Dharma eye only knows sentient beings' faculties, inclinations, natures, etc., and does not say it knows other minds with greed, free of greed, and so forth in their various kinds. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the Nirvāṇa, and the Avataṃsaka all state that the cognition of others' minds [knows] others' minds with greed, free of greed, and so forth, and do not say it knows their faculties, inclinations, natures, etc. Relying on these two passages, which separately clarify that the Dharma eye does not encompass others' minds: although the Buddha eye is the cognition of all aspects, it is because the four eyes reach the fruit that they form the Buddha eye; since the four do not encompass others' minds, the Buddha eye is likewise the same. Or it is said that the Buddha eye also knows others' minds; otherwise, how could it be called omniscience? Only because its mode of knowing is not obvious, the Buddha, apart from the five eyes, separately speaks of the cognition of others' minds. Furthermore, because the Dharma teachings are each different, they are consequently discussed with distinctions. Now, the six supernormal powers and the three clarities are also vision and cognition. Why are the remaining supernormal powers and clarities not mentioned? Psychic powers are merely bodily operations, not the characteristics of cognition and vision; the divine ear hears sounds, and its purpose is to know those minds, but if one merely knows those minds, speech and sounds are not essential, hence they are not mentioned; past-life knowledge knows past events, which is subsumed under the divine eye, so it is also not mentioned; within the destruction of taints, taking one's own destruction of taints as object is subsumed under the Buddha eye, while taking others' destruction of taints as object is known to be subsumed under this cognition of others' minds, which is why it is not mentioned. Or it is said: in a single assembly, what is taught is adapted to the needs of the audience, so why must it be complete?'