成唯識論了義燈 6.27

6.27

言隨見聞覺知者，法師《雜集》疏云：略以二門分別：一出體、二廢立。初出體者，《雜集》第二、《瑜伽》五十六皆作是說。約勝義諦，見等非根，亦非識等，眾緣生故、剎那滅故、無作用故。由有和合假名見等，依世俗諦，見等是根，非彼識等，具五義故。彼論說六，今言五者但取根義，不取教量。言五義者：一由生因，眼生識故；二由依處，識依眼故；三由無動，相續一類故；四由自在，不待外緣念念生故；五端嚴轉，嚴依身故；六由說故，聖教說眼能見色故。《瑜伽》第二說，見謂眼根現見外色，聞謂從他，覺謂不見及不曾聞，但自思惟稱量觀察，知謂於內所受、所證。九十三說：見、知二種現量所攝，覺謂比量，聞聖言量。准此即說眼根名見，意因耳生緣教名聞，通緣一切名、句、文三屈曲生。故陳那說，彼聖言量者此量所攝，故聞是意。因耳聞聲故耳稱聞，耳實不能緣名等故，非比量故，緣非聖言亦此聞攝。論多依彼聞聖言故，覺者即是不依見等，獨生意識及第七識。《瑜伽》但說為比量者，依意識說，末那亦能起搆畫故，亦不曾嗅、不曾甞觸、不曾知證。但意思惟籌量觀察，亦是覺收。論中但舉不曾見、聞，舉勝說故。隨五識後，所起意識比量者，亦此覺收，但舉獨頭，彰勝用故。不爾，便闕此之意識。知者即是耳、鼻、舌、身、五俱意識、第八心品、及諸定心。《瑜伽》別說自內所受、所證等故。又說此知現量攝故，即顯見、知唯現量攝，聞、覺二種通比、非量。及顯見、知通漏、無漏。聞、覺唯有漏，諸無漏心緣教生者，知所攝故，非比量故。或說此四攝識不盡，緣非教聲有非、比量。聞不攝故，末那搆畫非量所攝，覺不攝故。或四但據六識作論，七識不能分明了境起言說故，又《顯揚》十八說，在欲界中具四言說，色界無覺無推度故，無色全無，故知此四攝法不盡。此義不然，聖非聖言通依四故，依七起言無處攝故。色界意識染心等後所起言說，無處攝故，然彼地心多無搆畫，而起言說，非彼全無覺言說也。說無色界無四言說，豈彼界中知亦非有，外道邪見覺亦無邪。由此，色界具四，無色有覺、知而無言說，故知如前所說為善。二廢立者，以理而論，且應立二：一、知；二、覺。一切現量皆知所攝，一切比量、非量皆覺所攝。或應立三：現量、比量、非量別故。今為西者眼用遠明，知中離出獨立為見，意識用廣，聞、覺、知攝，分位開三，外緣師教，及自推尋，內證境故。末那唯有染、淨二類，搆畫證解二類境故，餘之五識用非別勝，內慮義等總立名知。又初相遇眼先能見，聞彼言說心搆畫之，然後諸根領餘境界。次第既爾，用有勝劣或合或開，故非增減，餘諸義門如別章說。

Regarding "following what is seen, heard, sensed, and known": the Master's commentary on the Samuccaya states: "Briefly, they are distinguished through two doors: first, identifying the essence; second, elimination and establishment. First, regarding identifying the essence: both Samuccaya fascicle two and Yogācārabhūmi fascicle fifty-six state as follows: From the perspective of the ultimate truth, seeing and so forth are not the sense-faculties, nor are they consciousness and so forth, because they are produced from multiple conditions, because they perish in an instant, and because they are without activity. On account of assembly, there are merely conventional designations of seeing and so forth. According to conventional truth, seeing and so forth are the sense-faculties and not those consciousnesses and so forth, because they possess five senses. That treatise speaks of six; here, speaking of five, it only takes the sense of sense-faculty and does not take scriptural authority. Regarding the five senses: (1) due to the generative cause, because the eye generates consciousness; (2) due to the basis, because consciousness relies on the eye; (3) due to immobility, because it is of a continuous, uniform class; (4) due to autonomy, because it arises moment to moment without relying on external conditions; (5) occurring as dignified adornment, because it adorns the support-body; (6) due to expression, because the holy teachings state that the eye can see forms. Yogācārabhūmi fascicle two states that 'seen' means the eye-faculty directly perceiving external forms; 'heard' means from another; 'sensed' means what is not seen and has not been heard, but is merely one's own pondering, weighing, and inspecting; 'known' means what is internally experienced and verified. Fascicle ninety-three states: seen and known are subsumed under direct perception; sensed refers to inference; heard is the testimony of the holy teachings. According to this, it explains that the eye-faculty is called 'seen'; the mental [consciousness], arising by relying on the ear and taking teaching as an object, is called 'heard', which generally takes as objects all three—names, phrases, and phonemes—arising in inflection. Thus Dignāga said that holy testimony is subsumed under this means of valid cognition, and therefore 'heard' is the mental consciousness. Because it hears sound by means of the ear, the ear is nominally called 'hearing'; since the ear cannot actually take names and so forth as objects, and is not an inference, taking non-holy speech as an object is also subsumed under this 'heard'. Treatises mostly rely on hearing holy words. 'Sensed' refers to the solitary mental consciousness and seventh consciousness that do not rely on seeing, etc. Yogācārabhūmi only describes it as inference in reliance on the mental consciousness; because the manas can also construct imaginations, what has not been smelled, not been tasted or touched, and not been known or realized, but is merely deliberated, weighed, and inspected by the mind, is also subsumed under sensed. The treatise only mentions not seen and not heard because it speaks by citing the prominent. The inference of mental consciousness that arises following the five consciousnesses is also subsumed under this sensed; it only cites the solitary [mental consciousness] to make manifest its prominent function. Were it not so, this mental consciousness would be lacking. 'Known' refers to the five consciousnesses of ear, nose, tongue, and body, the mental consciousness concomitant with the five, the mind-group of the eighth consciousness, and all meditative minds; this is because Yogācārabhūmi separately states it is what is internally experienced, verified, etc. Moreover, it states that this known is subsumed under direct perception; this reveals that seen and known are exclusively subsumed under direct perception, whereas heard and sensed encompass both inference and non-valid cognition. It also reveals that seen and known encompass both tainted and untainted, while heard and sensed are exclusively tainted; all untainted minds that arise taking teachings as objects are subsumed under known, because they are not inferences. Alternatively, some say that these four do not exhaustively subsume consciousness: taking non-scriptural sound as an object involves non-valid cognition and inference, which are not subsumed under heard; the imaginative construction of the manas is subsumed under non-valid cognition, which is not subsumed under sensed. Or, the four are argued merely with respect to the six consciousnesses, because the seventh consciousness cannot clearly understand objects to produce verbal expressions; further, Xianyang fascicle eighteen states that within the desire realm there are all four expressions, the form realm lacks sensed because it lacks deliberation, and the formless realm is completely without them, so one knows these four do not exhaustively subsume all dharmas. This reasoning is not correct: holy and non-holy speech generally rely on these four, and if speech arose relying on the seventh consciousness, it would have nowhere to be subsumed; the verbal expressions arisen after tainted minds, etc., in the mental consciousness of the form realm would have nowhere to be subsumed. Although the mind of that stage mostly lacks imaginative construction, it does produce verbal expressions; it is not that it completely lacks the expression of sensing. If one says the formless realm lacks the four verbal expressions, could it be that 'known' also does not exist in that realm, and does the tīrthika's wrong view lack 'sensed' as well? Therefore, the form realm possesses all four, and the formless realm has sensed and known without verbal expressions; hence, one knows that what was stated previously is proper. Second, regarding elimination and establishment: arguing by principle, one should first establish two: (1) known; (2) sensed. All direct perception is subsumed under known; all inference and non-valid cognition are subsumed under sensed. Or one should establish three, due to the distinction of direct perception, inference, and non-valid cognition. Now, for the western [masters], because the function of the eye is distant and clear, it is separated out from 'known' and established independently as 'seen'; the function of mental consciousness is broad, subsumed under heard, sensed, and known, and opened into three according to its states, because externally it takes the teacher's instructions as an object, itself investigates, and internally realizes objects. The manas has only two kinds: defiled and pure, because it takes two kinds of objects: imaginative construction and verified understanding. The remaining five consciousnesses have no specially prominent functions, and their internal reflective meaning, etc., is collectively given the name 'known'. Furthermore, at an initial encounter, the eye is first able to see, one hears their speech and the mind constructs it, and afterwards the other sense-faculties receive the remaining objects. Since the sequence is such, and their functions have superior and inferior aspects, they are either combined or unfolded; thus they neither increase nor decrease. The remaining doctrinal doors are as explained in separate chapters.