瑜伽師地論略纂 14.105

14.105

論云「問：諦現觀有幾種等，乃至彼共有法等，是名現觀」等者，法師云：於諸諦中決定智慧，謂思現觀；及彼因者，謂有漏見道以前信；彼相應者，謂無漏信；彼共有者，謂戒現觀。　若作此釋，釋現觀不盡。又此中文及彼因者，即於諦決定之因，豈是無漏之因耶？若爾，彼共有是誰之彼耶？　今別解云：「決定智慧」即是智諦及邊、究竟現觀等三種，皆緣諦生故。　「及彼因」者，即思現觀，是智諦之因故。若如勝軍，即此以為苦法忍之正因等。護法、同等會之釋，准知。　「彼相應」，謂無漏信觀，皆是心、心所法故，依等等故，名自相應。據無漏勝者，隱有漏信而不論。「共有法」者，戒現觀，此但名彼共有因故。若爾，何故先說智諦等耶？此中初問諦現觀有幾，今正答緣諦之現觀，謂智諦及邊、究竟等，餘非正現觀。若是思現觀，因故名現觀；信從相應，得名現觀；戒是共有，等名現觀，非正現觀故。今不次，越次而答，以初正出現觀體故，如餘處文。無明思、信等者，此位地分齊，故不同也。此中六現觀，如下文自當廣辨，與《對法》第十三十現觀相收故。下論云「謂三寶所三種淨信，由於實義已決定故，及聞所成決定智慧」等，若據實，此信通漏無漏。此中但據無漏勝者為言。何以知者？以有漏中說聞慧故，思慧前初緣教必先聞慧故。此中隱有漏，論聞慧也。　若爾，聞慧何不別立也？義曰：若據初緣諦寶，要信為道首，即信用增者以簡擇法為勝，即思勝故。准據信及與思，聞慧即信中攝，修慧通有漏，無漏勝者是智諦等收。有漏如何？如聞慧說，用非增故，亦在信中收。此未見文。聞慧信中收，此文為證也。即以聞、思二法為體，然信義初增，聞說信說。此中，智諦等唯約見道初得為論，然下文亦有勝道等，至無學位總名究竟觀。

The treatise says: "Question: How many kinds of truth-realization are there? … up to: … their conjoined phenomena, and so on—these are called realization." The Dharma Master says: "Decisive wisdom with respect to the truths refers to the realization of reflection. 'And its causes' refers to faith prior to the mundane path of seeing. 'Those conjoined with it' refers to undefiled faith. 'Those shared with it' refers to the realization of morality." If this explanation is adopted, the explanation of realization is not exhaustive. Moreover, when the text here states "and its causes," it refers to the cause of decisiveness with respect to the truths—how could it be the cause of the undefiled? If that were so, to what does "shared with it" refer as "its"? Now, an alternative explanation says: "Decisive wisdom" refers precisely to the three kinds: the realization of the truth of wisdom, as well as the realization of margins and the ultimate realization, because all three arise by taking the truths as their objective support. "And its causes" refers to the realization of reflection, because it is the cause of the truth of wisdom. If according to Jayasena, this precisely constitutes the direct cause of the receptivity to the Dharma of suffering, and so on. As for the interpretations harmonized by Dharmapāla and others, they should be understood accordingly. "Those conjoined with it" refers to the realization of undefiled faith; because both are mind and mental factors, sharing the same basis and so forth, they are called mutually conjoined. Based on the superiority of the undefiled, defiled faith is concealed and not discussed. "Shared phenomena" refers to the realization of morality; this is only designated as "shared with it" in terms of its cause. If so, why does it first speak of the truth of wisdom and so forth? Here, the initial question asks how many truth-realizations there are; it now directly answers with the realizations that take the truths as their objective support, namely the truth of wisdom, margins, and the ultimate, while the rest are not direct realizations. If it is the realization of reflection, it is called realization because it is a cause; faith receives the name of realization from being conjoined; morality is called realization because it is shared, and so on, because they are not direct realizations. Now, not following the order, it answers out of sequence because it first directly brings forth the essential nature of realization, as in other passages. That there is no explicit mention of reflection, faith, and so on, is because the delimitations of these stages and grounds differ. The six realizations here will be extensively differentiated in the text below, corresponding to the ten realizations in the thirteenth fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya]. Below, the treatise states: "It refers to the three kinds of pure faith in the Three Jewels, due to already being decisive regarding the real meaning, and the decisive wisdom produced by hearing," and so forth. If considered in reality, this faith encompasses both defiled and undefiled. Here, it speaks only according to the superior undefiled. How is this known? Because within the defiled, wisdom produced by hearing is mentioned; before the wisdom of reflection initially takes the teaching as its objective support, there must first be wisdom produced by hearing. Here, concealing the defiled, it discusses the wisdom produced by hearing. If so, why is wisdom produced by hearing not established separately? The interpretation says: If based on initially taking the truths and jewels as objective supports, faith must be the head of the path; thus, when faith's function is predominant, discerning phenomena is superior, and thus reflection is superior. Correspondingly based on faith and reflection, wisdom produced by hearing is subsumed within faith. Wisdom produced by cultivation encompasses both defiled and undefiled; the superior undefiled is subsumed by the truth of wisdom, and so on. What about the defiled? As stated for wisdom produced by hearing, because its function is not predominant, it is also subsumed within faith. This text has not been seen before; that wisdom produced by hearing is subsumed within faith takes this text as proof. It thus takes the two dharmas of hearing and reflection as its essence; yet because the meaning of faith is initially predominant, when hearing is discussed, faith is discussed. Here, the truth of wisdom and so forth are discussed only in terms of the initial attainment in the path of seeing; however, the text below also includes the superior path, up to the stage of the non-learner, which are collectively called ultimate realization.