瑜伽論記 14.287

14.287

三藏云：慧眼緣空，法眼緣有，即皆後得智，共佛眼須別有體，故以無分別為佛眼，肉眼不然，果方名故，爾此智緣如，云何緣極微，既爾慧眼緣空，如何緣極微？義曰：緣極微空，故亦得緣極微，既爾此智亦緣極微如，故無分別智亦得緣極微，以無分別智為佛緣體。三藏云：又佛眼者，即法眼緣有之眼也。又義不然，雖要須別慧眼緣理即正體智，法眼緣於空有即後得智，佛眼總攝前二以為佛眼。何以得知者，如對法言其真如唯聖慧眼境，故知慧眼而緣真如。若爾，經言：得法眼淨，法眼應緣理？義曰：唯言淨故即緣真如，法名通故得無漏法眼非五眼中法眼。若爾，何故此卷下末，云聖慧眼見一切色，若遠近等，即法眼異名以慧為體故名慧眼，非五眼中慧眼也，在因名慧法，在果總名佛。約用以離總有三眼，眼佛亦具足，此如大智度論自釋，此為了義。

The Tripiṭaka Master says: The wisdom eye takes emptiness as its object, and the Dharma eye takes existence as its object; thus both are subsequent wisdom. Along with the Buddha eye, there must be distinct substances; hence non-conceptual wisdom is taken as the Buddha eye. The physical eye is not like this, because it is named only at the fruition stage. Now, this wisdom takes suchness as its object; how could it take an atom as its object? If that is so, since the wisdom eye takes emptiness as its object, how does it take an atom as its object? The meaning is: It takes the emptiness of an atom as its object, and therefore it can also take an atom as its object. If that is so, then this wisdom also takes the suchness of an atom as its object; hence non-conceptual wisdom can also take an atom as its object, taking non-conceptual wisdom as the substance of the Buddha's cognitive object. The Tripiṭaka Master says: Moreover, the Buddha eye is precisely the Dharma eye, the eye that takes existence as its object. Yet another meaning says: It is not so; although it is necessary that they be distinct, the wisdom eye takes principle as its object, which is fundamental wisdom, and the Dharma eye takes both emptiness and existence as its object, which is subsequent wisdom; the Buddha eye comprehensively subsumes the preceding two to constitute the Buddha eye. How is this known? As the Abhidharmasamuccaya states, 'Suchness is the object solely of the noble wisdom eye'; hence it is known that the wisdom eye takes suchness as its object. If that is so, when the sūtra states: 'Obtained the purity of the Dharma eye', should the Dharma eye take principle as its object? The meaning is: Because it only says 'pure', it takes suchness as its object; because the name 'dharma' is general, one obtains the taintless Dharma eye, which is not the Dharma eye among the five eyes. If that is so, why does the end of this fascicle state: 'The noble wisdom eye sees all forms, whether far or near, etc.'? This is an alternative name for the Dharma eye; because wisdom is its substance, it is called the 'wisdom eye', but it is not the wisdom eye among the five eyes. In the cause, they are called wisdom and Dharma; in the fruition, they are collectively called Buddha. In terms of function, divided, there are three eyes in total; in the Buddha, the eyes are also complete. This is just as explained in the Dazhidulun itself; this is the definitive meaning.