[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 6.17 # 成唯識論了義燈 6.17 成唯識論了義燈 6.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.17) 《論》：「除後剎那」等，本釋義准。菩薩三心相見道中，前二初根，第三心去屬第二根，論文不簡，除何見道，最後剎那，總相說故。或依《雜集》總十六心隨他相說，《雜集》第九云：未知攝見，已知攝修，具攝無學，以薩婆多第十六心，判屬修道故是隨他。或一剎那少故，隱之從多說修，又由小乘說，十六心緣於四諦，至第十六無所未知，故已知攝。若大乘說總十六心通緣理智，道類智忍緣智已周，與有部別，故第十六已知根攝者，或依二乘，或依他轉。今據《瑜伽》唯識第九，菩薩相見復有三心，以法前真無間、解脫別、總建立，初二別觀，第三合法，即是重觀。二十六心皆云：法真見道無間、解脫，故亦重觀，非未當知可當知故。又《雜集》第十云：如是十根先未知真，為欲得知修習轉故，名未知當知根，二心正知，故第三心即屬第二，雖是見道屬第二根。然《要集》云：菩薩不觀二十六，可如所言至第三心名已知根，然無文簡二十六心，又若唯觀真智十六可如所說，上下四諦十六如何。又《瑜伽》等云：初無相從世第一無間而生，三心、十六但云從此，不可即說真、相同時。由此道理真後三心，及二十六皆名相見，准此意說，不許本釋三心第三屬第二根。復云無相從世第一法無間而生者，謂本師許真、相同時義說前後。今謂不然，三心見道，《瑜伽》五十五亦云：從決擇分，邊際善根無間而生。此論亦會諸相見道，依真假說，世第一法無間而生非唯無相。又二十六皆是重緣，何者二十六心俱法真見？即三心後重觀法彼，何非已知。若約觀俗，上下十六第十六心，未有智知應名當知。若云：論說除後剎那者，論亦說云無所未知，即屬第二。故知《雜集》說，前十五為未知者隨他相說，如說已知，即攝修道，據自大乘第十六心，雖已知根是見道故，故知諸說義意各別。然本疏中自分大小，立三根別。 > On the Śāstra's statement: "Excepting the final moment," etc., the original commentary's explanation proceeds by deduction. Within the bodhisattva's three-mind image-based path of vision (pratibimbakadarśanamārga), the first two minds belong to the first faculty, and from the third mind onward they belong to the second faculty. The text of the śāstra does not qualify which path of vision is meant; it states \[the rule\] in general terms with respect to the final moment. Alternatively, it follows the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā in speaking conformingly to others regarding the total of sixteen minds; Fascicle Nine of the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā states: "The \[faculty of\] coming to know what is not yet known subsumes \[the path of\] vision; the \[faculty of\] having known subsumes \[the path of\] cultivation; the \[faculty of\] one who fully possesses knowledge subsumes \[the path of\] no-further-training." Because the Sarvāstivādins classify the sixteenth mind as belonging to the path of cultivation, this is speaking conformingly to others. Or else, because one single moment is brief, it is concealed to conform to the majority and designated as cultivation. Furthermore, according to the Hīnayāna, the sixteen minds observe the four noble truths, and upon reaching the sixteenth there is nothing left unknown, so it is subsumed under \[the faculty of\] having known. If according to Mahāyāna the total of sixteen minds universally observes both principle and wisdom, the cognitive forbearance of the subsequent cognition of the path (mārgānvayajñānakṣānti) has already exhaustively observed wisdom—which differs from the Sarvāstivāda—and therefore the sixteenth is subsumed under the faculty of having known either by relying on the two vehicles or by accommodating others. Now, according to the Yogācārabhūmi and Fascicle Nine of the Cheng weishi lun, the bodhisattva's image-based path of vision also has three minds: they are established generally and specifically by modeling upon the preceding real uninterrupted \[path\] and \[path of\] liberation. The first two are specific contemplations, and the third synthesizes them, which is re-contemplation. The twenty-six minds are all said to model upon the real path of vision's uninterrupted \[path\] and \[path of\] liberation, and thus they are also re-contemplations, because they are not \[cases of\] knowing what has not yet been known and ought to be known. Moreover, Fascicle Ten of the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā states: "These ten faculties, having previously not known reality, are cultivated and set into motion in order to come to know it, and are therefore called the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known." The two minds know it correctly, so the third mind belongs to the second \[faculty\]; although it is in the path of vision, it belongs to the second faculty. However, the Yaoji states: "If the bodhisattva did not contemplate the twenty-six \[minds\], it could be as stated, with the third mind being named the faculty of having known; yet no text qualifies the twenty-six minds. Furthermore, if one only contemplated the sixteen of real wisdom, it could be as stated; but what about the sixteen of the higher and lower four truths? Moreover, the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts state: 'The initial signless \[path of vision\] arises uninterruptedly from the supreme mundane dharmas (laukikāgradharma); the three minds and the sixteen are only said to arise subsequent to this'; thus one cannot say that the real and the image-based are simultaneous. By this principle, both the three minds and the twenty-six \[minds\] subsequent to the real are called image-based vision; according to this intended meaning, the original commentary's explanation that the third of the three minds belongs to the second faculty is rejected. Furthermore, regarding the statement that the signless arises uninterruptedly from the supreme mundane dharmas, our fundamental master holds that the real and the image-based are simultaneous, and spoken of as before and after only in terms of meaning." Now I say this is not so: concerning the three-mind path of vision, Fascicle Fifty-Five of the Yogācārabhūmi also states: "It arises uninterruptedly from the culminating wholesome roots of the \[stages\] conducive to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya)." This śāstra also reconciles the various image-based paths of vision by explaining that their arising uninterruptedly from the supreme mundane dharmas is spoken of metaphorically based on the real \[path of vision\], and is not \[restricted\] solely to the signless. Moreover, all twenty-six are re-observations; which of the twenty-six minds do not model upon real vision? That is, after the three minds, they re-contemplate and model upon it; why would they not be \[the faculty of\] having known? If speaking in terms of observing conventional \[truth\], in the higher and lower sixteen \[minds\], the sixteenth mind would not yet have wisdom knowing it, so it should be called \[the faculty of\] coming to know. If it is said: "The śāstra says 'excepting the final moment,'" the śāstra also says "there is nothing left unknown," which immediately belongs to the second \[faculty\]. Thus we know that the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā's statement that the first fifteen are \[the faculty of\] coming to know is spoken conformingly to others, just as saying that \[the faculty of\] having known subsumes the path of cultivation is based on Mahāyāna itself: although the sixteenth mind is the faculty of having known, it belongs to the path of vision. Thus we know that each of the various explanations has a distinct doctrinal intent. The original commentary itself divides Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna in establishing the distinction among the three faculties. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.16) - [Next: 6.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.18) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.6.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.17) · Pramāṇa