大乘法苑義林章 6.32

6.32

第一出體者，此三自性別境慧攝，名三慧故，通現及種。《顯揚論》十七說十八現觀，謂聞所成智、思所成智、修所成智，說是智故。有說此三，唯是意識，或七八識相應慧性，非五識俱，五識不能緣教理故。《唯識論》第六說善十一中，五識唯十，自性散動無輕安故。說佛身中無五識故，眼等不能聽聞法故。五識中善唯是生得，不明了故。有義：五識亦有聞修。《唯識》有說五識有輕安，定所引善者亦有調暢故，成所作智俱必有輕安故。定有修慧，何緣五識？雖無分別，由第六識分別引生有分別惑，聞慧意引。而無聞慧雖不別緣若名若義，名俱之聲體即是教，耳既緣彼寧非聞慧？思慧深緣名所詮義，五識可無。聞麁緣教，五識應有。聞慧意引五識善生，因聞所成聞慧伴類，亦聞慧攝，聞所成故。若能引意聞加行善，所引五識生得善者亦應能引第六意識是分別惑，所引五識唯是俱生。若爾，不應通見道斷，便違聖教。若親聞聲方名聞者，意慧應非。若聞聲故、彼所成故，五亦應有。《瑜伽》第十三〈聞慧地〉說「於五明處名句文身，覺慧為先。聽聞、領受、讀誦、憶念，名聞所成地。」彼論意說：覺慧為先者，是生得慧，初闇劣故。後聽聞等皆是聞慧，能明了故。故耳識俱明了意識，亦是聞慧。不明了者，生得慧攝。由此聞慧唯取意識相應慧性，所引伴類亦通五識相應慧性。七識不外緣，八識佛果起，無聞慧故。思慧唯取意識俱慧，五非助伴，行相淺故。非七識俱，在無漏位行相深故。佛無思慧，非第八俱。修慧定通八識俱有。言彼所成慧，體性如前。但言所成不說慧者，便通四蘊或五蘊性。

First, identifying the essential nature: These three are subsumed under prajñā, which is of the particular-object category, by virtue of their intrinsic nature, being called the 'three wisdoms'; they extend to both actualities and seeds. Fascicle 17 of the Xianyang [shengjiao] lun states that the eighteen direct realizations refer to wisdom arisen from hearing, wisdom arisen from thinking, and wisdom arisen from cultivation, because it calls these 'wisdom'. Some say that these three are solely associated with the mental consciousness, or with the prajñā nature associated with the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, and not associated with the five consciousnesses, because the five consciousnesses cannot take teaching or principle as cognitive objects. Fascicle 6 of the [Cheng] weishi lun states that among the eleven wholesome factors, the five consciousnesses have only ten, because their intrinsic nature is scattered and agitated, lacking pliancy; and it states that in a Buddha's body there are no five consciousnesses, because the eyes and so forth cannot hear the Dharma; and the wholesomeness in the five consciousnesses is solely innate, because it is not distinct. Another position holds: the five consciousnesses also possess [wisdom] arisen from hearing and cultivation. The [Cheng] weishi lun states that the five consciousnesses have pliancy, because that which is wholesome and induced by samādhi also has harmonized ease, and because that which is associated with the wisdom of accomplish-what-must-be-done necessarily possesses pliancy. Since there is definitely wisdom arisen from cultivation, why [cannot it apply to] the five consciousnesses? Although they lack conceptual discrimination, due to being induced by the discrimination of the sixth consciousness, discriminative afflictions arise; [likewise,] wisdom arisen from hearing is induced by the mental consciousness. And if there were no wisdom arisen from hearing, although they do not separately take names or meanings as cognitive objects, the sounds associated with names are in essence the teaching itself; since the ear takes them as cognitive objects, how could this not be wisdom arisen from hearing? Wisdom arisen from thinking deeply cognizes the meanings expressed by names, so the five consciousnesses may lack it. Wisdom arisen from hearing coarsely cognizes the teaching, so the five consciousnesses should possess it. When wisdom arisen from hearing induces wholesomeness to arise in the five consciousnesses by means of the mental consciousness, being companions of wisdom arisen from hearing produced by hearing, they are also subsumed under wisdom arisen from hearing, because they are arisen from hearing. If the preparatory wholesomeness of hearing of the inducing mental consciousness resulted in the induced five consciousnesses having only innate wholesomeness, then it would also follow that the sixth consciousness that induces is a discriminative affliction while the induced five consciousnesses are solely innate. If so, they should not both be severed on the path of seeing, which would contradict the sacred teachings. If it is only called 'hearing' when one directly hears sound, the prajñā of the mental consciousness should not be [hearing]. If it is because one hears sound and is produced by it, the five [consciousnesses] should also possess it. The thirteenth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi, 'The Ground of Wisdom Arisen from Hearing', states: 'With regard to the collections of words, phrases, and syllables in the five sciences, with analytical prajñā being foremost: listening, receiving, reciting, and recollecting are called the ground arisen from hearing.' The intent of that treatise is: 'with analytical prajñā being foremost' refers to innate prajñā, because it is initially dark and inferior. The subsequent listening and so forth are all wisdom arisen from hearing, because they can be distinct. Therefore, the distinct mental consciousness associated with ear-consciousness is also wisdom arisen from hearing. That which is not distinct is subsumed under innate prajñā. Hence, wisdom arisen from hearing takes only the nature of prajñā associated with the mental consciousness, while its induced companions also extend to the nature of prajñā associated with the five consciousnesses. The seventh consciousness does not cognize external objects, and the eighth consciousness arises only in the Buddha-fruit, so they lack wisdom arisen from hearing. Wisdom arisen from thinking takes only the prajñā associated with the mental consciousness; the five are not its assistants, because their cognitive mode is shallow. It is not associated with the seventh consciousness, because in the anāsrava stage its cognitive mode is deep. A Buddha has no wisdom arisen from thinking, nor is it associated with the eighth. Wisdom arisen from cultivation definitely extends to being associated with all eight consciousnesses. As for the statement 'wisdom arisen from that', its essential nature is as above. If one merely says 'arisen from that' without saying 'wisdom', it would then extend to the nature of the four aggregates or five aggregates.