成唯識論了義燈 6.17

6.17

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.