大乘義章 15.6

15.6

第二門中辨其體性。於中有五：第一有漏無漏分別、二三性分別、三見智慧忍四義分別、四學無學非學非無學三義分別、五見斷修斷無斷分別。漏無漏者，初四諦智，義釋不定。云何不定？四諦之智，汎有兩門：一者獨法，但令觀諦，莫問淺深，有漏無漏一切通皆名四諦智。於此門中通漏無漏。二者共法，約對餘解。共為十智，或復說為十一智等。於此門中，分取無漏為四諦智，其有漏者判屬等智，四智不收。法智比智，義亦兩門：一者獨法，一切觀行通為法比。於此門中，法比兩智通漏無漏。二者共法，約對餘解共為十智。於此門中，分取無漏為法比智，其有漏者判屬等智。盡無生智一向無漏。等智一種，《毘曇》有漏，成實法中名用無漏，非是觀空斷結無漏。大乘法中通漏無漏，知事有漏，知法幻有是其無漏。他心智者，成實法中與等智同，名用無漏。毘曇法中通漏無漏，知他眾生有漏之心是其有漏，等智攝故；知他眾生無漏心者名為無漏，是其道智、法智、比智三智攝故。問曰：若此前九智攝，何勞別說？解有三義：一勝故別立，以離欲人之所得故，如盡無生；二通故別立，前九有漏無漏隔別，此智含通；三要故別立，了知他心，化人要故（此一門竟）。

In the second section, their essential nature is distinguished. Within this, there are five [topics]: first, the distinction between sāsrava and anāsrava; second, the distinction among the three natures; third, the distinction among the four meanings of view (dṛṣṭi), knowledge (jñāna), wisdom (prajñā), and forbearance (kṣānti); fourth, the distinction among the three meanings of trainee (śaikṣa), non-trainee (aśaikṣa), and neither trainee nor non-trainee; and fifth, the distinction among what is abandoned by seeing, what is abandoned by cultivation, and what is not abandoned. Regarding sāsrava and anāsrava: first, the explanations of the four truths' knowledges are not fixed. Why are they not fixed? The knowledges of the four truths generally have two approaches: The first is the standalone approach, where simply making them contemplate the truths—regardless of shallow or deep, sāsrava or anāsrava—is entirely and universally called the knowledges of the four truths. In this approach, they encompass both sāsrava and anāsrava. The second is the shared approach, defined in contrast to other comprehensions. Together they constitute the ten knowledges, or are also spoken of as eleven knowledges, and so forth. In this approach, only the anāsrava is taken to be the knowledges of the four truths, while that which is sāsrava is classified under conventional knowledge (saṃvṛti-jñāna) and is not included in the four knowledges. The knowledge of phenomena (dharma-jñāna) and inferential knowledge (anvaya-jñāna) also have two approaches in meaning: The first is the standalone approach, where all contemplative practices are universally [classed as] dharma and anvaya. In this approach, both the dharma and anvaya knowledges encompass both sāsrava and anāsrava. The second is the shared approach, defined in contrast to other comprehensions to constitute the ten knowledges together. In this approach, only the anāsrava is taken to be dharma and anvaya knowledges, while that which is sāsrava is classified under conventional knowledge. The knowledge of exhaustion (kṣaya-jñāna) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpāda-jñāna) are definitively anāsrava. As for conventional knowledge alone, in the Abhidharma it is sāsrava; in the Tattvasiddhi system it is anāsrava in terms of conventional function, not an anāsrava that contemplates emptiness to sever fetters. In the Mahāyāna system, it encompasses both sāsrava and anāsrava: knowing phenomena is sāsrava, while knowing dharmas to be illusory existence is its anāsrava. As for the knowledge of the minds of others (paracitta-jñāna), in the Tattvasiddhi system it is the same as conventional knowledge, being anāsrava in terms of conventional function. In the Abhidharma system, it encompasses both sāsrava and anāsrava: knowing the sāsrava minds of other sentient beings is sāsrava, because it is subsumed under conventional knowledge; knowing the anāsrava minds of other sentient beings is called anāsrava, because it is subsumed under the three knowledges—the knowledge of the path, dharma-knowledge, and anvaya-knowledge. Question: If it is subsumed under the previous nine knowledges, why take the trouble to explain it separately? The explanation has three meanings: First, it is established separately because of its superiority, as it is attained by those free from desire, like the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising; second, it is established separately because of its inclusiveness, for while the preceding nine are distinguished by being strictly sāsrava or anāsrava, this knowledge encompasses both; third, it is established separately because of its necessity, as clearly knowing the minds of others is essential for transforming beings. (This completes one section.)