大乘義章 20.19

20.19

次第二門辨其體性。於中曲有五門分別：一約色心非色心等三聚分別、第二約就六識分別、第三約就十一智義而為分別、第四約就十明分別、第五約就慧心二種解脫分別。初約色心非色心等而分別者，有人釋言：眼耳二通色法為體，清淨色根為通體故；餘之四通心法為體，慧為體故。此義不然，須有分別。天眼天耳體實是色，不以眼耳而為通體，當知通體悉是智慧心法為體。何以得知？依如《毘曇》，將其十智分別六通，六通悉是十智所收，明知非色。又《成實》中辨六通義，創始標言六通智品，若使四通體性是智、二通非者，彼應標言四通智品，何故乃云六通智品？又《華嚴》中開分六通以為十明，十明是智，何得說言二通是色？又《地論》云「四通名智，天眼名見。」四通智者，身通天耳他心宿命，彼論既說天耳為智，明知天耳通體非色。天耳既爾，天眼亦然，但彼論中以眼照矚就用名見，論體是智，故經名為生死智通。約就色等分別如是（此一門竟）。

Next, the second section determines their essential nature. Within this, there are five detailed sections of analysis: first, analysis in terms of the three aggregates of form, mind, and neither-form-nor-mind; second, analysis in terms of the six consciousnesses; third, analysis in terms of the eleven knowledges; fourth, analysis in terms of the ten clarities; fifth, analysis in terms of the two liberations of wisdom and mind. First, regarding the analysis in terms of form, mind, neither-form-nor-mind, and so forth: some explain that the two supernatural powers of eye and ear have physical form as their essence, because the pure physical faculties are the essence of the supernatural powers; the remaining four supernatural powers have mental phenomena as their essence, because prajñā is their essence. This meaning is incorrect; there must be a distinction. The divine eye and divine ear in essence are indeed form, but eye and ear are not taken as the essence of the supernatural powers; it should be known that the essences of the supernatural powers all take wisdom, which is a mental phenomenon, as their essence. How is this known? According to the Abhidharma, which classifies the six supernatural powers using the ten knowledges, all six supernatural powers are subsumed under the ten knowledges; thus it is clear that they are not form. Furthermore, in the Tattvasiddhi, when distinguishing the meaning of the six supernatural powers, it initially designates them as the category of knowledge of the six supernatural powers; if four supernatural powers were knowledge by nature and two supernatural powers were not, it should have designated them as the category of knowledge of four supernatural powers, so why did it say the category of knowledge of the six supernatural powers? Furthermore, in the Avataṃsaka, the six supernatural powers are expanded into the ten clarities, and the ten clarities are knowledge; how could one say that two supernatural powers are form? Furthermore, the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: "Four supernatural powers are called knowledge, and the divine eye is called seeing." The four supernatural powers that are knowledge are the supernatural power of the body, the divine ear, others' minds, and past lives; since that treatise speaks of the divine ear as knowledge, it is clear that the essence of the supernatural power of the divine ear is not form. The divine ear being so, the divine eye is also thus; however, in that treatise, because the eye illuminates, it is called seeing in terms of its function, but in terms of its essence it is knowledge; therefore, the sūtra calls it the supernatural power of the knowledge of birth and death. The analysis in terms of form and so forth is like this (this completes the first section).