成唯識論了義燈 7.192

7.192

《論》：「一、思現觀」等。此思等六出體有四：一、剋性；二、據勝；三、相應；四、眷屬。如思現觀等說是惠者，即剋性體，及俱行菩提法，即後二體。五十五云「決定思惟」者，思惟即思，據勝出體。釋名者，如思現觀，是隣近釋。如四念住，體實是惠，由與念俱，名為念住，思現觀亦爾。此論、《顯揚》、《瑜伽》七十一並云思所成惠而為自性。西明云：「思現觀或持業，或依主。信隣近，戒如信。」且思現觀諸論說是思所成惠，如何持業？亦非依主。如戒非觀，名為現觀，說為隣近；思亦非觀，名為現觀，何非隣近？若云現觀非思，因思所起故依主者，何不得云現觀非思，云思現觀是隣近耶？信現觀體於三寶淨信為性，此剋性體。《瑜伽》五十五云「及聞所成決定智惠」，據勝出體。《顯揚》十七云或此俱行菩提分法，通相應眷屬，餘皆准此。信、戒釋名者，或亦有財，雖體非觀，能助現觀故；或依主釋，助現觀之信，令觀明之戒，名信、戒現觀；或如念住，亦是隣近。

The Treatise: "First, the direct realization of thought," and so forth. In extracting the essence of these six—thought and the rest—there are four ways: first, the definitive nature; second, based on the preeminent; third, associated; fourth, retinue. If the direct realization of thought and so on are spoken of as wisdom, that is the definitive nature, along with the co-arising factors of awakening (bodhidharmas), which are the latter two essences. Fascicle fifty-five stating "decisive reflection"—reflection is precisely thought (cetanā), extracting the essence based on the preeminent. As for explaining the name: like the direct realization of thought, it is an adjacent compound (upa-saṃkhyāna / karmadhāraya/tatpuruṣa variant). Just as the four foundations of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna) are in essence wisdom, but because they are conjoined with mindfulness (smṛti) they are called foundations of mindfulness, so it is with the direct realization of thought. This treatise, the Xianyang, and Yogācārabhūmi fascicle seventy-one all state that wisdom arisen from thought (cintāmayī prajñā) constitutes its intrinsic nature. Ximing says: "The direct realization of thought is either karmadhāraya or tatpuruṣa. Faith is adjacent, and morality is like faith." Now, since various treatises say the direct realization of thought is wisdom arisen from thought, how could it be karmadhāraya? Nor is it tatpuruṣa. Just as morality is not contemplation yet is called direct realization and explained as adjacent, thought is also not contemplation yet called direct realization, so why would it not be adjacent? If one says that direct realization is not thought, but because it arises due to thought it is tatpuruṣa, why can one not say that direct realization is not thought, and that calling it the direct realization of thought is adjacent? The essence of the direct realization of faith has pure faith in the Three Jewels as its nature; this is the definitive nature. Yogācārabhūmi fascicle fifty-five says "and the decisive wisdom arisen from hearing (śrutamayī prajñā)," which extracts the essence based on the preeminent. Xianyang fascicle seventeen says it is also the co-arising factors of awakening, which applies to the associated and retinue; the rest are all modeled on this. As for explaining the names of faith and morality: they may also be bahuvrīhi, for although in essence they are not contemplation, they are able to assist direct realization; or tatpuruṣa, faith that assists direct realization and morality that makes contemplation clear being called the direct realization of faith and morality; or like the foundations of mindfulness, they are also adjacent.