大乘義章 20.21

20.21

次第三門約十一智而為分別。十一智者，所謂十智及如實智，是十一也。何者十智？苦智、集智、滅智、道智即以為四。法智、比智通前為六。前四諦智在欲界名為法智，在上二界說為比智。盡智、無生智通前為八。向前六智在無學果，說為盡智無生智矣。此前八智一向無漏。第九等智一向有漏，第十他心通漏無漏。十智如是。此義如前十智章中具廣分別。如實智者，諸佛菩薩離增上慢，於一切法悉知如實知，非是不知妄稱知故，名如實智。若論其體，如《地持》說，謂清淨智、一切智、無礙智是，此如向前三智章中具廣辨釋。今約此智分別六通，小乘六通十智所收，大乘六通如實智攝。小乘六通十智所收，其相云何？如《毘曇》說「身通天眼天耳宿命，此之四通一等智性，唯有漏故。他心一通具五智性，若知他人有漏之心則等智性，若知他人無漏之心則是道智法比智性，知於欲界無漏他心則法智性，知於上界無漏他心則比智性。知上知下通道知性。知於有漏及與無漏，通皆是其他心之智，是故他心具五智性。」問曰：知於無漏他心，以何義故則得名為道智性乎？無漏他心體性是道，故知此心得名道智。若爾，所知有漏他心體是苦集，能知之智何故不名苦集智乎？釋言：應齊。但彼所知無漏他心體性微細，與彼道諦淺深相似，知彼心者則能知道，故知彼心則道智性。有漏他心事相浮麁，苦集之理其義微細，夫智麁者不及其細，是故知於有漏他心不得名為苦集之智。此釋麁似，細窮猶非，更須微窮。問曰：知他無漏心者，為當知他無漏心事？為當知他無漏心上道如迹乘四義通理？釋言：正論知他心事。若當知理，理相互通不分自他，云何得名他心智乎？問曰：若此知他心事不緣理者，論文自判「雖於十六行，除闇非無漏。」云何得名為道智乎？釋言：此義實難不易，須有消息。正論此通，知他心時非是無漏亦非道智，而彼論中名無漏者，近於無漏似無漏故名為無漏。又近無漏，始末通說故名無漏。又復說之為道智，亦以近道似於道觀名具道智。又復近道，始末通說名具道智。是義云何？凡欲知他無漏心時，要先觀其道如跡乘通相之理，然後就上測知他心，是故始終通相說之，名為道智、名為無漏。簡始論終，此非無漏，亦非道智。問曰：何故欲知他人無漏心事要先觀理，然後就上測知他心。不得望直知他心事？釋言：道如跡乘之理從煗等來，數觀純熟擬心則見；無漏他心本來未知，那含已上方始學觀。凡欲知難必須從易，是故欲知無漏他心必先觀理，理觀是彼決定近因，故通說之云具道智。問曰：若知無漏他心必先觀理，從近方便名道智者，知有漏心亦應如是，何以不得從近方便名苦集智？釋言：不類。彼無漏中理觀在前、知心在後，先易後難，故先觀理然後知心。彼有漏中，凡夫本來數知他心，本數知時未觀苦集，是故不從苦集觀入，不從入故，不得說之具苦集智。又復他人有漏之心本來數知，知之則易。苦集之理本來未見，煗等已來方始學觀，知之則難。易知之者，不藉難知而為方便，苦集之觀非彼近因，不得通說為苦集智。意見且然。縱有異釋，都謂是難。他心如是。漏盡通中攝智不定，或六或八或具十智。若知漏盡名漏盡智，則六智性，所謂滅智、法智、比智、盡無生智及與等智。知欲界滅名為法智；知上界滅名為比智；知上知下通名滅智；無學觀滅名盡無生；有漏心緣則是等智，除苦集道及他心智，彼非盡故。若彼聖人無學聖慧能盡諸漏名漏盡智，則八智性，除彼等智及他心智。等智不能究竟盡結，故除等智；無學息求不推他心，故除他心。餘八皆能究竟盡結，故具八智。問曰：法智云何能得究竟盡結說具法智？釋言：欲界滅道法智能斷上結得無學故。若當宣說漏盡人得名漏盡通，則十智性。小乘如是。大乘法中，如實智攝。其相云何？彼初五通皆一切智、無礙智收。漏盡通中，知於漏盡名漏盡通，亦一切智、無礙智攝。若證盡漏名漏盡通，清淨智收。約就諸智，分別如是（此三門竟）。

Next, the third section distinguishes them in terms of the eleven knowledges. The eleven knowledges refer to the ten knowledges plus the knowledge of true reality, making eleven. What are the ten knowledges? The knowledge of suffering, the knowledge of arising, the knowledge of cessation, and the knowledge of the path constitute four. The knowledge of phenomena (dharma-jñāna) and inductive knowledge (anvaya-jñāna), combined with the previous [four], make six. The previous knowledges of the four noble truths in the desire realm are called the knowledge of phenomena; in the two higher realms they are called inductive knowledge. The knowledge of exhaustion (kṣaya-jñāna) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpāda-jñāna), combined with the previous [six], make eight. When the previous six knowledges are in the fruition of the unlearned (aśaikṣa), they are called the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising. These previous eight knowledges are purely untainted. The ninth, conventional knowledge (saṃvṛti-jñāna), is purely tainted. The tenth, the knowledge of others' minds, spans both tainted and untainted. Such are the ten knowledges. This meaning has been distinguished and explained extensively in the preceding chapter on the ten knowledges. As for the knowledge of true reality: the Buddhas and bodhisattvas are free from excessive pride, and regarding all phenomena they know completely and know in accordance with reality; because it is not a matter of not knowing yet falsely claiming to know, it is named the knowledge of true reality. If we discuss its essence, as stated in the Bodhisattvabhūmi (*Dichilun*), it refers to pure knowledge, all-knowledge, and unhindered knowledge; this is also explained extensively in the preceding chapter on the three knowledges. Now, distinguishing the six superknowledges in terms of these knowledges: the six superknowledges of the Hīnayāna are subsumed by the ten knowledges, whereas the six superknowledges of the Mahāyāna are subsumed by the knowledge of true reality. What are the characteristics of the six Hīnayāna superknowledges being subsumed by the ten knowledges? As the Abhidharma explains: 'The body superknowledge, the divine eye, the divine ear, and [the recollection of] past lives—these four superknowledges are purely of the nature of conventional knowledge, because they are exclusively tainted. The single superknowledge of others' minds possesses the nature of five knowledges: if one knows the tainted minds of others, it is of the nature of conventional knowledge; if one knows the untainted minds of others, it is of the nature of the knowledge of the path, the knowledge of phenomena, and inductive knowledge. Knowing the untainted minds of others in the desire realm is of the nature of the knowledge of phenomena; knowing the untainted minds of others in the higher realms is of the nature of inductive knowledge. Knowing both the higher and lower spans the nature of the knowledge of the path. Knowing both the tainted and the untainted all comprehensively constitutes the knowledge of others' minds; therefore, [the superknowledge of] others' minds possesses the nature of five knowledges.' Question: In knowing the untainted minds of others, on what grounds does it receive the designation of being of the nature of the knowledge of the path? [Answer:] The essence of the untainted minds of others is the path; therefore, knowing these minds can be called the knowledge of the path. [Objection:] If so, the known tainted minds of others are in essence suffering and arising; why is the knowing intellect not named the knowledge of suffering and arising? An explanation states: They should correspond. However, that known untainted mind of others is subtle in nature and resembles the depth of the noble truth of the path; one who knows that mind is capable of knowing the path, so knowing that mind is of the nature of the knowledge of the path. The tainted minds of others are superficial and coarse in phenomenal appearance, whereas the principle of suffering and arising is subtle in meaning; an intellect that is coarse cannot reach what is subtle, and therefore knowing the tainted minds of others cannot be named the knowledge of suffering and arising. This explanation seems plausible on the surface, but upon close investigation it is still flawed; it requires further nuanced examination. Question: When one knows the untainted mind of another, is it that one knows the phenomenal event of the other's untainted mind, or is it that one knows the pervasive principle of the four aspects—path, method, practice, and vehicle—upon the other's untainted mind? An explanation states: Properly speaking, it is knowing the phenomenal event of the other's mind. If one were knowing the principle, the characteristics of the principle are universally shared and do not distinguish self from other; how then could it be called the knowledge of others' minds? Question: If this knowing of the phenomenal event of another's mind does not take the principle as its object, the treatise itself determines: 'Although [exercised] toward the sixteen mental practices, eliminating ignorance is not [thereby] untainted.' How then can it be called the knowledge of the path? An explanation states: This point is truly difficult and not easy; it requires careful evaluation. Properly speaking, when this superknowledge knows another's mind, it is not untainted, nor is it the knowledge of the path. Yet, in that treatise it is called untainted because it is proximate to the untainted and resembles the untainted, hence it is called untainted. Furthermore, because it is proximate to the untainted, speaking comprehensively of the beginning and end, it is called untainted. Again, it is spoken of as the knowledge of the path also because it is proximate to the path and resembles contemplation of the path, so it is called possessing the knowledge of the path. Furthermore, being proximate to the path, speaking comprehensively of the beginning and end, it is called possessing the knowledge of the path. What is the meaning of this? Whenever one wishes to know another's untainted mind, one must first contemplate the principle of the common characteristics of path, method, practice, and vehicle, and only then discern and know the other's mind based upon it. Therefore, speaking comprehensively of the beginning and the end, it is called the knowledge of the path and called untainted. If one distinguishes the beginning from the end, this [knowing of the mind itself] is neither untainted nor the knowledge of the path. Question: Why is it that, when wishing to know the phenomenal event of another's untainted mind, one must first contemplate the principle and only then discern and know the other's mind based upon it, and cannot directly know the phenomenal event of the other's mind? An explanation states: The principle of path, method, practice, and vehicle has been repeatedly contemplated and mastered since the stage of warmth and onwards, so that as soon as one directs the mind one sees it. The untainted minds of others were originally unknown, and one only begins to learn to contemplate them from the stage of the anāgāmin upward. Whenever one wishes to know what is difficult, one must proceed from what is easy; therefore, wishing to know the untainted mind of another, one must first contemplate the principle. Contemplation of the principle is its definitive proximate cause; hence, speaking comprehensively, it is said to possess the knowledge of the path. Question: If knowing another's untainted mind must be preceded by contemplating the principle, and is named the knowledge of the path from its proximate expedient, knowing a tainted mind should also be like this; why cannot it be named the knowledge of suffering and arising from its proximate expedient? An explanation states: They are not analogous. In the case of the untainted, contemplation of the principle comes first and knowing the mind comes after; the easy comes first and the difficult comes after, hence one first contemplates the principle and then knows the mind. In the case of the tainted, worldlings have originally and repeatedly known others' minds, and when they originally and repeatedly knew them, they had not contemplated suffering and arising; therefore they do not enter [this knowledge] from the contemplation of suffering and arising. Because they do not enter through it, it cannot be said to possess the knowledge of suffering and arising. Furthermore, others' tainted minds have originally and repeatedly been known, so knowing them is easy. The principle of suffering and arising has originally never been seen, and one only begins to learn to contemplate it from the stage of warmth and onwards, so knowing it is difficult. What is easy to know does not rely on what is difficult to know as an expedient; contemplation of suffering and arising is not its proximate cause, so it cannot be comprehensively called the knowledge of suffering and arising. This is our view for now. Even if there are different explanations, all consider this a difficulty. Such is the knowledge of others' minds. In the superknowledge of the exhaustion of taints, the subsumption of knowledges is not fixed: it may be six, eight, or all ten knowledges. If knowing the exhaustion of taints is called the knowledge of the exhaustion of taints, then it is of the nature of six knowledges: namely, the knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of phenomena, inductive knowledge, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and conventional knowledge. Knowing the cessation of the desire realm is called the knowledge of phenomena; knowing the cessation of the higher realms is called inductive knowledge; knowing both higher and lower is comprehensively called the knowledge of cessation; an unlearned one contemplating cessation is called [the knowledges of] exhaustion and non-arising; when taking it as an object with a tainted mind, it is conventional knowledge. It excludes [the knowledges of] suffering, arising, and the path, as well as the knowledge of others' minds, because those are not cessation. If the unlearned noble wisdom of that noble one that can exhaust all taints is called the knowledge of the exhaustion of taints, then it is of the nature of eight knowledges, excluding conventional knowledge and the knowledge of others' minds. Conventional knowledge cannot definitively exhaust defilements, hence it is excluded; the unlearned one has ceased seeking and does not investigate others' minds, hence it is excluded. The remaining eight can all definitively exhaust defilements, so it possesses eight knowledges. Question: How is the knowledge of phenomena able to definitively exhaust defilements such that it is said to possess the knowledge of phenomena? An explanation states: Because the knowledge of phenomena regarding the cessation and the path of the desire realm can sever the higher defilements and attain the stage of the unlearned. If it is said that what a person who has exhausted taints attains is called the superknowledge of the exhaustion of taints, then it is of the nature of ten knowledges. Such is the Hīnayāna. In the Mahāyāna doctrine, it is subsumed by the knowledge of true reality. What are its characteristics? Those first five superknowledges are all subsumed by all-knowledge and unhindered knowledge. In the superknowledge of the exhaustion of taints, knowing the exhaustion of taints is named the superknowledge of the exhaustion of taints, which is also subsumed by all-knowledge and unhindered knowledge. If directly realising the exhaustion of taints is called the superknowledge of the exhaustion of taints, it is subsumed by pure knowledge. The distinctions in terms of the various knowledges are as described above (this concludes the third section).