大乘義章 20.14

20.14

次第六門明其五眼所見分齊。先論肉眼，如龍樹說「凡夫肉眼，極遠不能見百由旬，如轉輪王，自斯已還近遠不定。」問曰：日月去此四萬二千由旬，世人同見，云何不能滿百由旬？論自釋言「日月有光反照自體，故人見之，非是眼力。又人雖見，不能稱實，故不名見。」云何不稱？日月方圓五百由旬，見如扇許，故云不稱。聲聞緣覺肉眼同凡，菩薩肉眼遠近不定，如《大品》說「近則見於一百由旬，遠極三千大千世界。」問曰：近處有何定准，而言近見一百由旬？龍樹釋言「為別凡夫、轉輪王等，故言見百。其實不定。」問曰：遠處以何義故不能多見，而言極遠見三千界？論釋有三。一義釋言：三千界外虛空之中有大風輪，與肉眼違，以此障故，不能遠見。第二釋言：若無天眼，強修勝福應能遠見；以有天眼，更不修習殊異勝福，故不遠見。第三釋言：菩薩肉眼亦能遠見，但佛不說。後釋應善。何以得知？如經中說「阿彌陀國報得肉眼，徹見無數三千界事。」明知不局一三千界。《大品》說言見三千界，據此言耳。問曰：肉眼不能見於障外之色，云何能見三千界事？論釋有二。一義釋言：雖見三千，障處不見，無障處見。第二釋云：菩薩雖復生在人中，以彼宿世淨業因緣，報得天眼與彼肉眼同在一處，以此天眼開導力故，令彼肉眼得見障外所有之色。問曰：若使天眼導故肉眼得見障外色者，闇中之色，天眼開導能得見不？釋言：不得。故論說言「夜闇之時，天眼獨用，肉眼不見。」何故如是？釋言：於彼障外色處有空有明，生識緣具，故得天眼開導令見。闇中之色在於闇中，色處無明，生識緣闕，天眼雖導而不能見。此是一理。又障外色不在障中，彼處顯了，牽心義強，故天眼導即便能見。闇中之色在於闇中，無牽心義，故設導之亦不能見。菩薩如是。如來肉眼所見幾何？論釋有二。一云：如來與菩薩同見三千界。第二釋言：佛法難思，所有肉眼亦能遠見；雖能遠見，佛多不用，不以為實。此義如佛聖自在通中宣說：佛於好色不生貪等樂，於彼惡色不生厭惡，於此二色或時行捨。以是義故，雖得肉眼勝過餘人而不愛樂，以不愛故不數用之。論釋如是。問曰：若使如來肉眼能見遠色，以何義故不名天眼而名肉眼？釋言：此從肉眼因得，故名肉眼。又為天眼開導能見，非獨自力，故名肉眼。肉眼如是。次論天眼所見分齊。如龍樹說「凡夫之人修得天眼，極遠能見一四天下。」凡夫之人報得天眼所見分齊，經論不辨，今宜准其住處論之。如經中說「初禪住處如千四天下，二禪住處如二千四天下，三禪住處如三千四天下，四禪住處寬廣無量。」雖云無量，不定多少，准前階降，應如四千四天下許，亦可不啻，所見應爾。文無成判，未可專定。聲聞人中有大有小，其小聲聞見小千界，與彼初禪梵王相似。所言異者，如龍樹說「梵王身在千世界邊，向內能見、向外不見。聲聞不爾，隨身所在，向內向外恒見千界。」其大聲聞見中千界，除阿那律，以阿那律專修力故見三千界，是故說為天眼第一。緣覺人中有大有小，小者能見中千世界，大者能見大千世界。菩薩天眼有其二種：一者修起、二者報得。其修起者，隨人大小所見不定，論其極者，見一切界。故《地持》云「菩薩以其一切世界為通境界。」其報得者，《大品》宣說極遠能見一三千界。如來天眼亦有二種：一者修得，見一切界。二者報得，與菩薩同見三千界，亦可能見無量世界，准前肉眼，其義應爾。後之三眼不復可以方所論之，唯得約法淺深分別。先論慧眼。聲聞緣覺所得慧眼，唯見生空，如《地持》亦然；設得法空，少不足言。菩薩慧眼，具見二空而不窮盡。如來慧眼，見空畢竟。次論法眼。聲聞緣覺所得法眼，但能見於陰界諸入，及四真諦十二緣等。雖見此法，總相麁觀，不能微細。菩薩法眼，了達眾生根欲性心及一切法，於一切法若總若別麁細悉知，而不窮盡。如來法眼，了知眾生根欲性心及一切法，悉皆窮極。次論佛眼。二乘全無。菩薩人中進退不定。一義分別：地前菩薩聞見佛性，以聞見故名大聲聞。地上菩薩眼見佛性，以眼見故說之為證。若依《涅槃》「九地已還聞見佛性，十地眼見而未明了，但見自身所有佛性，不見眾生，故名不了。又於自身十分見一，故名不了。」如來佛眼，見性窮極。五眼所見，分齊如是。

Next, the sixth section clarifies the range of what is seen by the five eyes. First, discussing the flesh eye: as Nāgārjuna says, "The flesh eye of an ordinary being at the farthest cannot see one hundred yojanas, as in the case of a wheel-turning king; from this point on down, the near and far are undetermined." Question: The sun and moon are forty-two thousand yojanas distant from here, and people in the world all see them; why can it not reach one hundred yojanas? The treatise itself explains: "The sun and moon possess light that reflects back onto their own bodies, and thus humans see them; it is not due to the power of the eye. Furthermore, although people see them, they do not match their true size; therefore it is not called seeing." In what way do they not match? The sun and moon are five hundred yojanas in diameter, yet they are seen as merely the size of a fan; hence it is said they do not match. The flesh eye of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is identical to that of ordinary beings. The near and far [range] of a bodhisattva's flesh eye is undetermined; as the Pañcaviṃśati states, "Nearby, it sees one hundred yojanas; far away, it reaches to a trichiliocosm." Question: What definite standard is there for the near range that it is said to see one hundred yojanas nearby? Nāgārjuna explains: "In order to distinguish them from ordinary beings, wheel-turning kings, and the like, it is said to see one hundred; in reality it is not fixed." Question: By what principle can it not see farther in the distance, such that it is said to see at the farthest a trichiliocosm? The treatise explains in three ways. One explanation states: Beyond the trichiliocosm, in empty space, there is a great wind-wheel that opposes the flesh eye; obstructed by this, it cannot see far. The second explanation states: If one lacked the divine eye, by vigorously cultivating superior merit one would be able to see far; but because one possesses the divine eye, one does not cultivate further extraordinary superior merit, and therefore one does not see farther. The third explanation states: The bodhisattva's flesh eye can indeed see farther, but the Buddha simply did not say so. The latter explanation should be the correct one. How is this known? As it is said in the sūtra: "The flesh eye obtained as retribution in Amitābha's land clearly sees the affairs of countless trichiliocosms." One clearly knows that it is not restricted to a single trichiliocosm. The Pañcaviṃśati's statement that it sees a trichiliocosm was spoken on this [particular] basis. Question: The flesh eye cannot see forms beyond obstructions; how can it see the affairs of a trichiliocosm? The treatise explains in two ways. One explanation states: Although it sees a trichiliocosm, it does not see where there are obstructions; it sees where there are no obstructions. The second explanation states: Although the bodhisattva is born among humans, due to the conditions of pure karma from past lives, the divine eye obtained as retribution is in the same place as that flesh eye; by the guiding power of this divine eye, it causes that flesh eye to be able to see all forms beyond obstructions. Question: If the guiding of the divine eye causes the flesh eye to be able to see forms beyond obstructions, can it see forms in the dark through the divine eye's guidance or not? Explanation: It cannot. Therefore the treatise says: "At night in darkness, the divine eye functions alone, and the flesh eye does not see." Why is it like this? Explanation: In the place of that form beyond obstructions there is space and light, and the conditions for generating consciousness are complete; therefore it receives the guidance of the divine eye and is made to see. Forms in the dark are within the darkness; in the place of the form there is no light, and the conditions for generating consciousness are lacking; although the divine eye guides, it cannot see. This is one principle. Furthermore, forms beyond obstructions are not within darkness; that place is conspicuous, and its capacity to draw the mind is strong; thus when guided by the divine eye, it can immediately see. Forms in the dark are within darkness and have no capacity to draw the mind; therefore even if guided, it still cannot see. Such is the bodhisattva. How much is seen by the Tathāgata's flesh eye? The treatise explains in two ways. One says: The Tathāgata, identical to the bodhisattva, sees a trichiliocosm. The second explanation states: The Buddha-dharma is inconceivable; any flesh eye he has can also see far; although it can see far, the Buddha mostly does not employ it, not regarding it as ultimate reality. This meaning is explained as in the Buddha's noble sovereign superknowledges: the Buddha does not generate attachment or pleasure toward agreeable forms, does not generate revulsion toward disagreeable forms, and sometimes exercises equanimity toward both kinds of forms. For this reason, although he has obtained a flesh eye superior to that of other people, he does not cherish it; because he does not cherish it, he does not frequently employ it. Such are the explanations of the treatise. Question: If the Tathāgata's flesh eye can see distant forms, for what reason is it not called the divine eye, but rather called the flesh eye? Explanation: Because this is obtained from the cause of the flesh eye, it is called the flesh eye. Furthermore, because it can see through the guidance of the divine eye and not by its own power alone, it is called the flesh eye. Such is the flesh eye. Next, discussing the range of what is seen by the divine eye: as Nāgārjuna says, "The divine eye acquired through cultivation by an ordinary person can see at farthest one four-continent realm." The range of what is seen by the divine eye obtained as retribution by an ordinary person is not distinguished in the sūtras and treatises; now it should be discussed based on their dwelling places. As it is said in the sūtra: "The dwelling place of the first dhyāna is like one thousand four-continent realms; the dwelling place of the second dhyāna is like two thousand four-continent realms; the dwelling place of the third dhyāna is like three thousand four-continent realms; the dwelling place of the fourth dhyāna is vast and immeasurable." Although it says immeasurable, the exact amount is not fixed; following the preceding gradation, it should be about four thousand four-continent realms, or perhaps even more; what is seen should be like this. The texts have no conclusive judgment, so it cannot be definitively fixed. Among śrāvakas there are great and small: the small śrāvaka sees a minor chiliocosm, resembling that of the Brahmā king of the first dhyāna. What is said to be different: as Nāgārjuna says, "The Brahmā king's body is at the edge of a thousand worlds; looking inward he can see, but looking outward he cannot see. The śrāvaka is not like this; wherever his body is, looking inward or looking outward, he constantly sees a thousand worlds." The great śrāvaka sees a medium chiliocosm, except for Aniruddha; because of the power of Aniruddha's dedicated cultivation, he sees a trichiliocosm, and is therefore declared foremost in the divine eye. Among pratyekabuddhas there are great and small: the small can see a medium chiliocosm, and the great can see a great chiliocosm. There are two kinds of bodhisattva divine eye: first, that generated through cultivation; second, that obtained as retribution. As for that generated through cultivation, what is seen is not fixed, depending on the greatness or smallness of the person; speaking of its limit, it sees all worlds. Therefore the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: "The bodhisattva takes all worlds as the objective realm of his superknowledges." As for that obtained as retribution, the Pañcaviṃśati declares that at farthest it can see one trichiliocosm. The Tathāgata's divine eye also has two kinds: first, that acquired through cultivation, which sees all worlds; second, that obtained as retribution, which like the bodhisattva sees a trichiliocosm, or can also see immeasurable worlds; based on the flesh eye above, its principle should be thus. The latter three eyes can no longer be discussed in terms of spatial locations, but can only be distinguished according to the depth and shallowness of phenomena. First, discussing the wisdom eye: the wisdom eye obtained by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas sees only the emptiness of sentient beings, and this is also the case as in the Bodhisattvabhūmi; even if they obtain the emptiness of dharmas, it is minimal and not worth speaking of. The bodhisattva's wisdom eye fully sees both emptinesses, but not exhaustively. The Tathāgata's wisdom eye sees emptiness to the ultimate. Next, discussing the Dharma eye: the Dharma eye obtained by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas can only see the aggregates, realms, and āyatanas, as well as the four noble truths, the twelve links of dependent origination, and so forth. Although they see these dharmas, it is a coarse observation of their general characteristics, and cannot be subtle. The bodhisattva's Dharma eye thoroughly understands the faculties, desires, natures, and minds of sentient beings, as well as all dharmas; regarding all dharmas, whether general or particular, coarse or subtle, it knows them all, yet not exhaustively. The Tathāgata's Dharma eye thoroughly knows the faculties, desires, natures, and minds of sentient beings, as well as all dharmas, entirely and completely to the utmost. Next, discussing the Buddha eye: the two vehicles completely lack it. Among bodhisattvas, advancement and retreat are not uniform. Distinguishing according to one principle: bodhisattvas before the bhūmis see the Buddha-nature through hearing, and because they see it through hearing, they are called great śrāvakas; bodhisattvas on the bhūmis see the Buddha-nature with the eye, and because they see it with the eye, this is termed realization. If relying on the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: "From the ninth bhūmi on down, one sees the Buddha-nature through hearing; on the tenth bhūmi, one sees it with the eye but not clearly; one only sees the Buddha-nature present within one's own body, and does not see that of sentient beings, hence it is called unclear. Furthermore, within one's own body one sees one part out of ten, hence it is called unclear." The Tathāgata's Buddha eye sees the nature to the utmost. Such is the range of what is seen by the five eyes.