成唯識論述記 6.291

6.291

述曰：廣有二說。體即別境惠，《對法》第一說：報、教、證、智，決擇為體。彼是本論，彼釋云：謂報、教、證、智，是生得、聞、思、修如次配之。以報為生得，生便即得故，從所依名報。聞緣教生，從境為名故。思能引證故，說思為證。證是修惠，是思所生，思惠從果以彰號。智謂修惠，是所生故，當體得名。若名修惠，從因定為名。問：若體即是別境惠者，何須善中唯說於惠，餘四別境善中不說也？

The Commentary states: The extensive explanation has two theories. Its entity is the wisdom (mati) of the specific-object [mental factors]. Fascicle 1 of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* states: "It takes decisive judgment regarding retribution, teachings, realization, and insight as its entity." That is the basic treatise; its commentary explains: "Retribution, teachings, realization, and insight" match innately acquired, hearing, thinking, and cultivation, respectively. Taking retribution as innately acquired is because it is acquired upon being born, so it is named "retribution" from its basis. Hearing arises with teachings as its condition, so it is named from its intentional object. Thinking is able to lead to realization, so thinking is called "realization." Realization is the wisdom of cultivation, which is produced by thinking; the wisdom of thinking takes its designation from its fruit. "Insight" refers to the wisdom of cultivation, because it is what is produced, and so takes its name from its own entity. If it is called the wisdom of cultivation, it is named from its cause, concentration. Question: If its entity is indeed the wisdom of the specific-object [factors], why is only wisdom mentioned among the wholesome [factors], while the other four specific-object [factors] are not mentioned among the wholesome?