大乘法苑義林章 6.34

6.34

第三所緣者，《俱舍》二十二，毘婆沙師說：聞所成慧唯緣名境，未能捨文而觀義故。《毘婆沙論》四十二說「聞所成慧，於一切時依名了義。念三藏教及師友教有何義耶，隨其所念皆能解了，然成就位實唯緣義。」今據初位說唯緣名，思所成慧緣名義境，有時由文引義、有時由義引文，未全捨文而觀義故。修所成慧，唯緣義境已能捨文，唯觀義故。《婆沙》又說「於一切時不依於名而了義故。譬如有人浮深駛水，曾未學者不捨所依，曾學未成或捨或執，曾善學者不待所依自力浮渡。當知三慧如次亦爾。」有言：若爾，思慧不成。謂此既通緣名緣義，如次應是聞、修所成。今詳三相，無過別者。諸修行所依聞至教所生勝慧，名聞所成。依思正理所生勝慧，名思所成。依修等持所生勝慧，名修所成。說所成言，顯三勝慧是聞思等三因所成。猶如世間於命、牛等，如次說是食草所成。今觀彼意，天親正取聞唯緣教，思唯緣義，修慧亦爾。然《毘婆沙》諸門分別中唯有一說，此三種慧皆緣名義，與此相違。今依大乘，聞慧通緣若名若義。《瑜伽》十三說「云何聞所成地？謂若略說於五明處名句文身無量差別。覺慧為先，聽聞領受，讀誦憶念。又於依止名身句身文身義中無倒解了，如是名為聞所成地。」此中初文說緣於名，後文緣義。然彼論第十一說「緣法作意者，謂聞所成慧相應作意」，不說緣義者，緣教多故，未能捨文而觀義故，以教為先而方取義。唯說緣法，理實通緣。思所成慧，有義唯緣於義。《瑜伽》第十六說思慧自性，凡所思惟唯依於義、不依於文。雖彼亦說思擇諸法、思素怛纜及伽他義，非彼文故。《瑜伽》第十一又說「緣義作意者，謂思所成慧故。」即彼復說「修所成慧相應作意，亦唯緣義不緣於文。十地等中諸後得智有緣教者，彼是聞慧亦非修慧。」《十地論》說「八地已上，於一切法能堪、能思、能持，如次即是聞、思、修慧。」八地已去定心相續，外緣教法既說為聞。故知思、修但緣於義。籌慮、證解二義有別，在佛身中說無聞思，唯有修慧通緣名義。若聞他教非修慧者，其性是何？故知修慧通緣名義，然皆證解。如實義者，《瑜伽》七十七、《解深密經》第三卷中，慈氏菩薩白言：「世尊！若聞所成、思所成慧、修所成慧皆緣義者，有何差別？」「善男子！聞所成慧依止於文，但如其說未善意趣。未現在前隨順解脫，未能領受成解脫義。思所成慧亦依於文，不唯如說亦善意趣，未現在前隨順解脫，未能領受成解脫義。若諸菩薩修所成慧，亦依於文亦不依文，亦如其說亦不如說，能善意趣，所知事同分三摩地所行影像現前，極順解脫，已能領受成解脫義。是名三種知義差別。」彼說三慧皆緣名、義。初依聽聞，以文為先，而觀義者名為聞慧。次依思慮以義為先，而觀文者名為思慧。次依於修俱於文義證解明了名為修慧。此在因位八地以上一體義分，七地已前各有別體。在佛位中無未曾得，都無聞思，唯有修慧。然諸聖教隨彼所宜相增，別說緣名、義異，理實如是。

Third, their objective realms: Fascicle 22 of the Kośa says that the Vaibhāṣikas state: 'Wisdom arisen from listening takes only names as its objective realm, because it is not yet able to leave the text aside to contemplate the meaning.' Fascicle 42 of the Vibhāṣā says: 'Wisdom arisen from listening at all times relies on names to understand meanings. When mindful of the teaching of the Tripiṭaka and the teaching of teachers and friends, asking "what meaning does this have?", one can understand whatever one is mindful of; yet in the stage of full accomplishment, it actually takes only the meaning as its objective realm.' Now, relying on the initial stage, it is said to take only names as its objective realm. Wisdom arisen from reflection takes names and meanings as its objective realm; sometimes the meaning is brought out through the text, and sometimes the text is brought out through the meaning, because it has not yet completely left the text aside to contemplate the meaning. Wisdom arisen from cultivation takes only meanings as its objective realm, because it is already able to leave the text aside and solely contemplate meanings. The Vibhāṣā further says: 'Because at all times it understands the meaning without relying on names. For example, like someone swimming across deep, swift water: one who has never trained does not let go of what he clings to; one who has trained but not yet mastered it sometimes lets go and sometimes grasps; one who has trained well does not depend on anything to cling to and crosses by his own strength. Know that the three wisdoms are also like this in order.' Some say: If that is so, then the wisdom of reflection is not established. That is, since it generally takes both names and meanings as its objective realm, it should respectively be [either] that arisen from listening or that arisen from cultivation. Now, closely examining the characteristics of the three, there is no other fault: the superior wisdom that arises for practitioners in reliance on listening to the highest teaching is called 'arisen from listening'; the superior wisdom that arises in reliance on reflecting on correct principles is called 'arisen from reflection'; the superior wisdom that arises in reliance on cultivating samādhi is called 'arisen from cultivation'. Using the word 'arisen' (mayī) shows that the three superior wisdoms are accomplished by the three causes of listening, reflection, and so forth, just as in the world, life, cattle, and so on are respectively said to be 'formed of grass-eating'. Now observing his intention: Vasubandhu correctly takes listening to take only the teaching as its objective realm, reflection to take only the meaning as its objective realm, and the wisdom of cultivation is likewise. However, in the various categorical distinctions in the Vibhāṣā, there is only one explanation that all three kinds of wisdom take both names and meanings as objective realms, which contradicts this. Now, relying on the Mahāyāna, the wisdom of listening generally takes both names and meanings as its objective realm. Chapter 13 of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'What is the ground arisen from listening? Briefly stated, it refers to the immeasurable distinctions of names, phrases, and phonemes in the five sciences. With discerning wisdom coming first, one listens, receives, recites, and remembers. Furthermore, relying upon the meanings of the collections of names, phrases, and phonemes, one understands them without inversion. This is called the ground arisen from listening.' Here, the earlier text says it takes names as its objective realm, and the later text says it takes meanings as its objective realm. However, Fascicle 11 of that treatise says: 'Attention directed toward phenomena refers to attention associated with wisdom arisen from listening.' That it does not speak of taking meanings as its objective realm is because it takes the teaching as its objective realm for the most part, not yet being able to leave the text aside to contemplate the meaning; taking the teaching as primary, it only then grasps the meaning. Though it only says it takes phenomena as its objective realm, in reality it generally takes both. As for wisdom arisen from reflection, one opinion holds that it takes only meanings as its objective realm. Chapter 16 of the Yogācārabhūmi says of the nature of the wisdom of reflection: whatever it reflects upon relies only on meaning and not on text. Although it also speaks of reflecting and choosing among phenomena, reflecting on the meaning of sūtras and gāthās, it is not on their text. Chapter 11 of the Yogācārabhūmi also says: 'Attention directed toward meaning refers to wisdom arisen from reflection.' The same text further says: 'Attention associated with wisdom arisen from cultivation also takes only meaning as its objective realm, not text. Among the various kinds of subsequent wisdom in the ten grounds and so forth, that which takes teachings as its objective realm is the wisdom of listening and is not the wisdom of cultivation.' The Daśabhūmikā-śāstra says: 'From the eighth ground onward, being able to endure, being able to reflect upon, and being able to maintain all phenomena are, respectively, the wisdoms of listening, reflection, and cultivation.' From the eighth ground onward, the concentrated mind is continuous; since taking external teachings as its objective realm is called listening, we know that reflection and cultivation take only meaning as their objective realm. Deliberation and realized understanding differ in meaning. In the body of a Buddha, it is said there is no listening or reflection, but only the wisdom of cultivation, which generally takes both names and meanings as its objective realm. If listening to another's teaching were not the wisdom of cultivation, what would its nature be? Therefore, we know that the wisdom of cultivation generally takes both names and meanings as its objective realm, yet in all cases it is realized understanding. As for the definitive meaning: in Chapter 77 of the Yogācārabhūmi and Fascicle 3 of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Bodhisattva Maitreya addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honoured One! If wisdom arisen from listening, wisdom arisen from reflection, and wisdom arisen from cultivation all take meaning as their objective realm, what is the difference between them?' 'Good son! Wisdom arisen from listening relies on the text, and merely according to what is stated, does not yet comprehend the underlying intention. It has not yet manifested in conformity with liberation, and is not yet able to receive and accomplish the meaning of liberation. Wisdom arisen from reflection also relies on the text; not merely according to what is stated, it also comprehends the underlying intention, but has not yet manifested in conformity with liberation, and is not yet able to receive and accomplish the meaning of liberation. As for the wisdom arisen from cultivation of the bodhisattvas: it both relies on the text and does not rely on the text, it is both according to what is stated and not according to what is stated; it is able to comprehend the underlying intention, and an image appearing in samādhi corresponding to the knowable object becomes present before it, exceedingly conforming with liberation, already able to receive and accomplish the meaning of liberation. These are called the three distinctions in knowing the meaning.' Those [passages] state that the three wisdoms all take both names and meanings as their objective realms. First, relying on listening, with text coming first, that which contemplates the meaning is called the wisdom of listening. Next, relying on reflection, with meaning coming first, that which contemplates the text is called the wisdom of reflection. Next, relying on cultivation, that which realizes, understands, and clearly illuminates both text and meaning is called the wisdom of cultivation. In the causal stage, from the eighth ground onward, these are conceptual distinctions within a single entity; prior to the seventh ground, each has a distinct entity. In the Buddha stage, there is nothing not previously attained; there is no listening or reflection at all, but only the wisdom of cultivation. However, the sacred teachings, following what is appropriate for each case and according to the predominance of characteristics, speak distinctively of taking names or meanings as objective realms; in reality it is as [explained here].