大乘義章 10.57

10.57

次就位論。通則位位一切皆具，於中別分非無差異。異相如何？准依《毘曇》，外凡位中初受師教說為聞慧；五停心觀總別念處想心觀行未得禪定，修慧法故，判為思慧；煗等已上依定修行，判為修慧。又更分別，五停心觀依教之始，判為聞慧；總別念處背教已遠，觀心轉強，判為思慧；煗等已上依定修行，判為修慧。成實法中，念處已前初受師教，隨聞得解，判為聞慧；念處位中，堪能自心分別簡擇，說為思慧；煗等已上，現見空理，說為修慧。問曰：《成實》三慧如是，此三慧中解知何法？有人釋言：聞慧地中，以陰分生得眾生空；思慧地中，別觀五陰壞苦無常，成前生空，兼趣法空；煗等已上，總觀五陰行苦無常，得諸法空。蓋是人語，不關經論。若當聞慧但解生空，法空寂聞竟在何處？若當思慧壞法以成眾生空者，法空寂思復在何處？若修慧地唯解法空，生空寂修復在何處？二空之理皆藉初聞、次思、後修方能悟入，而言生空但有聞慧而無修慧，法空有修而無聞思，豈非謬浪。當知聞慧具聞二空，思慧地中具見二空，修慧地中具見二空，不得偏取。大乘法中位分不定，據始為言，習種位中依教悟解成就聞慧。故《華嚴》中宣說十住隨所聞法即自開解；性種位中捨詮得義成就思慧；解行已上修習出道成就修慧。次勝以論。種性地中於出世道但可聞知、未能思量，同為聞慧；解行位中，能觀出道，判為思慧；初地以上，正行漸增，判為修慧。次上以論，習種、性種直爾成就出世種子，未能方便趣入出道，三慧俱無；解行位中，能起方便趣入出道，於出世法能聞能思，具聞思慧。故《地持》中說解行地具足聞慧、思慧思惟；初地已上發起正行，說為修慧。極上以論，一切地前，成就教行，同為聞慧；初地之中，始觀人如，判為思慧；二地已上，證心轉增，判為修慧。位別如是（此三門竟）。

Next, discussing them according to stages: Generally speaking, every stage possesses all of them, yet within this, distinguishing them separately, there are indeed differences. What are these distinctive aspects? According to the Abhidharma, in the stage of an external worldling, initially receiving the master's teaching is described as wisdom derived from hearing. The fivefold method for stilling the mind and the specific and general applications of mindfulness, being meditative contemplations in thought that have not yet attained dhyāna-samādhi, cultivate the dharma of wisdom and are therefore determined to be wisdom derived from thinking. From the [stage of] Heat onward, practicing based on samādhi is determined to be wisdom derived from cultivation. Alternatively distinguished: the fivefold method for stilling the mind, being the beginning of relying on the teaching, is determined to be wisdom derived from hearing. The specific and general applications of mindfulness, having turned far away from [merely relying on] teaching as the contemplative mind grows stronger, are determined to be wisdom derived from thinking. From Heat onward, practicing based on samādhi is determined to be wisdom derived from cultivation. In the doctrine of the Tattvasiddhi, prior to the applications of mindfulness, initially receiving the master's teaching and gaining understanding as one hears is determined to be wisdom derived from hearing. In the stage of the applications of mindfulness, being capable of discriminating and selecting with one's own mind is described as wisdom derived from thinking. From Heat onward, directly seeing the principle of emptiness is described as wisdom derived from cultivation. Question: If the three wisdoms of the Tattvasiddhi are like this, what dharmas are understood and known within these three wisdoms? Someone explained: in the stage of wisdom derived from hearing, one analyzes the aggregates and sentient beings to attain the emptiness of sentient beings; in the stage of wisdom derived from thinking, one specifically contemplates the five aggregates as the suffering of decay and impermanence, completing the former emptiness of sentient beings and concurrently advancing toward the emptiness of dharmas; from Heat onward, one generally contemplates the five aggregates as the suffering of conditioning and impermanence, attaining the emptiness of all dharmas. This is mere personal speculation, not connected with the sūtras or treatises. If wisdom derived from hearing understood only the emptiness of sentient beings, where then would the still hearing of the emptiness of dharmas ever be? If wisdom derived from thinking destroyed dharmas to accomplish the emptiness of sentient beings, where then would the still thinking of the emptiness of dharmas be? If the stage of wisdom derived from cultivation understood only the emptiness of dharmas, where then would the still cultivation of the emptiness of sentient beings be? The principle of the two emptinesses in all cases depends upon hearing first, thinking next, and cultivating later to enable awakening and entry. To claim that the emptiness of sentient beings has only wisdom derived from hearing but lacks wisdom derived from cultivation, while the emptiness of dharmas has cultivation but lacks hearing and thinking—how could this not be completely erroneous? One should know that wisdom derived from hearing fully hears both emptinesses, in the stage of wisdom derived from thinking one fully sees both emptinesses, and in the stage of wisdom derived from cultivation one fully sees both emptinesses; one must not hold a one-sided view. In the Mahāyāna teachings, the division of stages is not fixed. Speaking from the beginning: in the stage of the disposition of habituation, one awakens and understands relying on the teaching, accomplishing wisdom derived from hearing. Hence the Avataṃsaka explains that in the ten abodes, following whatever dharmas are heard, one immediately opens up and understands by oneself. In the stage of the disposition of nature, one discards the expression and grasps the meaning, accomplishing wisdom derived from thinking. From [the stage of] resolute practice onward, one cultivates and practices the path of transcendence, accomplishing wisdom derived from cultivation. Discussing them next according to superior [stages]: in the stage of disposition, with regard to the supramundane path one can only hear and know it but is not yet able to deliberate upon it, so both belong together to wisdom derived from hearing. In the stage of resolute practice, one is capable of contemplating the path of transcendence, which is determined to be wisdom derived from thinking. From the first bhūmi onward, correct practice gradually increases, which is determined to be wisdom derived from cultivation. Discussing them further up: in the disposition of habituation and disposition of nature, one simply accomplishes the supramundane seeds but is not yet able to apply expedient means to enter the path of transcendence, so all three wisdoms are absent. In the stage of resolute practice, one is able to generate expedient means to enter the path of transcendence, being able to hear and think regarding supramundane dharmas, thus possessing both wisdom derived from hearing and wisdom derived from thinking. Hence the Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that the stage of resolute practice is complete in wisdom derived from hearing and the contemplation of wisdom derived from thinking; from the first bhūmi onward, one initiates correct practice, which is described as wisdom derived from cultivation. Discussing them at the very highest level: before all the bhūmis, accomplishing the practice of the teaching is together regarded as wisdom derived from hearing; in the first bhūmi, one first contemplates the suchness of persons, which is determined to be wisdom derived from thinking; from the second bhūmi onward, the mind of realization increases further, which is determined to be wisdom derived from cultivation. The differences in stages are as such (this concludes the third section).