大乘法苑義林章 6.43

6.43

第十諸門分別者，合有十門。一問：如是三慧，幾緣自相？幾緣共相？答：此有多種，略說有三：一處自相。色聲等法名為自相，色蘊無常等皆為共相。二事自相。青黃等法名為自相，色聲處等名為共相。三自相自相。不可言性名為自相，餘可言等名為共相。廣引理教，如義應知。證自相自相唯修慧得，餘自共相通聞思慧。又《佛地論》說自共相差別，准義亦爾。二問：幾因幾果？答：此有二種，一勝劣相生、二勝劣相修。依初義者，聞為三慧因，思為二慧因，修為一慧因。修為三慧果，思為二慧果，聞為一慧果。由劣為勝因、勝為劣果故。若據同類義別則不然，思非修因、修非思果，以異界故。依後義者，若令勢分熏發用增，因義如前說。若由此起熏修，彼體勢力增盛，後現在前極明淨者，聞所成慧唯聞慧因，思所成慧為思慧因，修所成慧為三慧因。聞思二慧不依定生，勢力下劣，現在前時不能令他勢力增勝後生明淨。修慧不爾，故為他因。或後勝法為前劣因，修令勝故。前生劣法非後勝因，由勢力劣，不能令後轉明淨故。三問：與幾根相應？答：聞所成慧四根相應，謂除苦根，在五識故。於上勝法愁戚欲證，憂根相應。在色界中，樂根相應。或五根俱，許聞慧類在五識有，亦苦根俱。如實義者，除苦、憂、樂、喜、捨俱，愁戚欲證思慧相應，性非聞慧。非逼迫故，非憂根俱。思所成慧，喜、憂、捨俱。色界地無，非五識故。修所成慧，樂、喜、捨俱。非散地法，散五無故。四問：幾等持、等至及等引俱？答：皆等持相應，別境定數故。有義：聞思非等引、等至俱，修慧可爾。聞思二慧是散善法，非定心故。有義：聞、思亦等引、等至俱，許八地後有聞思故。五問：幾善十一俱？答：有義思、修二慧，十一善俱。《成唯識論》許欲界中有輕安故。聞慧散遠，唯有餘十，散位所起無輕安故。實義三慧，十一善俱，許無漏心有聞思故。六問：幾不定四俱？答：三慧皆與尋、伺相應，定散位中皆容起故。悔、眠不與修慧相應，定散異故。有義：悔、眠非聞、思俱，行相麁鄙及昧略故，聞、思細勝及明廣故。實義聞、思亦悔、眠俱。聞、思悔惡，睡眠位中聽聞教法思慮義故。如《成唯識》第七卷說。七問：幾三界繫等？答：有義聞欲、色界繫，思唯欲界繫，修通上二界繫及不繫。實義聞慧通欲、色界繫及不繫，思慧欲界繫及不繫，修慧如前。聞、思二慧通不繫者，唯依色地，聞有種類故，思行相廣故。三種皆緣繫及不繫。八問：幾有學等？答：修所成慧通三種，聞思二慧有義唯非學非無學。實義唯有學，及非學非無學，說佛無故。若無學身有隨順無漏善，亦名無學者，聞、思二慧亦通無學，通緣三種。九問：幾見所斷等？答：若離縛斷，有義聞、思唯修所斷，非染污故非見所斷，非無漏故非非所斷。《成唯識》說善等十一非見所斷。《瑜伽論》說信等五根唯修所斷，非所斷故。修所成慧唯修所斷及非所斷，通無漏故。依不生斷，亦通見斷。說無想定等，唯見所斷故。如《成唯識》第八卷中說二斷義。十問：幾加行得離染得及生得？答：此三種慧皆非生得，非闇昧故。竝加行得，加行善故。皆離染得，離三地障得勝三慧。離八地染，得無漏三慧故。亦離九地染，得勝修慧故。雖有前世修習，此三於現身中必無任運得此三者，故非生得，要假少功力方乃能得故。佛所成者，定離染得，無加行故。聲聞、獨覺及菩薩位，通二種得，八地以後無勉勵加行、有任運加行故。

Tenth, distinction by various categories: There are ten categories in total. First question: Among these three types of wisdom, how many take specific characteristics as their object, and how many take universal characteristics as their object? Answer: There are many kinds; briefly stated, there are three: 1. Specific characteristics of āyatanas: phenomena such as visible matter and sound are called specific characteristics, while the impermanence, and so forth, of the aggregate of visible matter are all universal characteristics. 2. Specific characteristics of entities: phenomena such as blue and yellow are called specific characteristics, while the āyatanas of visible matter and sound are universal characteristics. 3. Specific characteristics of the specific characteristic: the ineffable nature is called the specific characteristic, while the remaining effable, and so forth, are universal characteristics. Extensively citing reasons and scriptures is to be understood according to the principle. Realizing the specific characteristic of the specific characteristic is attained solely by wisdom derived from cultivation; the other specific and universal characteristics are common to wisdom derived from hearing and wisdom derived from reflection. Furthermore, the *Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna* explains the distinctions between specific and universal characteristics, which should likewise be understood by this principle. Second question: How many are causes, and how many are fruits? Answer: There are two kinds: 1. mutual arising between the superior and the inferior, and 2. mutual cultivation between the superior and the inferior. According to the first meaning: hearing is a cause of the three wisdoms; reflection is a cause of two wisdoms; cultivation is a cause of one wisdom. Cultivation is a fruit of the three wisdoms; reflection is a fruit of two wisdoms; hearing is a fruit of one wisdom. This is because the inferior is a cause of the superior, and the superior is a fruit of the inferior. If based on the distinct meaning of being of the same category, it is not so: reflection is not a cause of cultivation, and cultivation is not a fruit of reflection, because they belong to different realms. According to the latter meaning: if it makes their momentum perfume and generate, increasing their function, the meaning of 'cause' is as explained before. If, by arising from this to perfume and cultivate, the momentum of that essence increases, and subsequent [wisdom] manifests with extreme clarity and purity: wisdom derived from hearing is a cause only for wisdom derived from hearing; wisdom derived from reflection is a cause for wisdom derived from reflection; wisdom derived from cultivation is a cause for all three wisdoms. Wisdoms derived from hearing and reflection do not arise relying on meditative absorption; their momentum is inferior, and when manifesting, they cannot cause another's momentum to increase so that what arises subsequently is clear and pure. Wisdom derived from cultivation is not like this, and therefore it is a cause for the others. Alternatively, subsequent superior phenomena are causes of preceding inferior ones, because cultivation makes them superior. Preceding inferior phenomena that have arisen are not causes of subsequent superior ones, because due to their inferior momentum, they cannot cause subsequent ones to become clearer and purer. Third question: With how many faculties are they associated? Answer: Wisdom derived from hearing is associated with four faculties—that is, excluding the faculty of pain—because it is in the five consciousnesses. When distressed and longing to realize superior phenomena above, it is associated with the faculty of grief. When in the form realm, it is associated with the faculty of pleasure. Alternatively, it is concomitant with all five faculties: admitting that types of wisdom derived from hearing exist in the five consciousnesses, it is also concomitant with the faculty of pain. According to the true meaning: excluding pain and grief, it is concomitant with pleasure, joy, and equanimity; being distressed and longing to realize is associated with wisdom derived from reflection, and its nature is not wisdom derived from hearing. Because it is not oppressive, it is not concomitant with the faculty of grief. Wisdom derived from reflection is concomitant with joy, grief, and equanimity. It does not exist in the stages of the form realm, because it is not of the five consciousnesses. Wisdom derived from cultivation is concomitant with pleasure, joy, and equanimity. It is not a phenomenon of distracted stages, because the distracted five [consciousnesses] are absent [in cultivation]. Fourth question: With how many [states of] samādhi, samāpatti, and samāhita are they concomitant? Answer: All are associated with samādhi, because it is a mental factor of the specific mental states. One opinion states: Hearing and reflection are not concomitant with samāhita and samāpatti, while wisdom derived from cultivation can be so. This is because the two wisdoms of hearing and reflection are wholesome phenomena of a distracted state, not a concentrated mind. Another opinion states: Hearing and reflection are also concomitant with samāhita and samāpatti, because it is admitted that hearing and reflection exist after the eighth stage. Fifth question: Concomitant with how many of the eleven wholesome [mental factors] are they? Answer: One opinion states that the two wisdoms of reflection and cultivation are concomitant with the eleven wholesome factors, because the *Cheng weishi lun* admits pliancy in the desire realm. Wisdom derived from hearing is distracted and remote, having only the other ten, because pliancy does not arise in a distracted state. The true meaning is that all three wisdoms are concomitant with the eleven wholesome factors, because it is admitted that hearing and reflection exist in the anāsrava mind. Sixth question: Concomitant with how many of the four indeterminate [factors] are they? Answer: All three wisdoms are associated with vitarka and vicāra, because they can arise in both concentrated and distracted states. Regret and torpor are not associated with wisdom derived from cultivation, because concentrated and distracted states differ. One opinion states: Regret and torpor are not concomitant with hearing and reflection, because their modes of activity are coarse, base, dull, and brief, whereas hearing and reflection are subtle, superior, clear, and extensive. The true meaning is that hearing and reflection are also concomitant with regret and torpor: because within hearing and reflection one may regret evil, and in a state of sleep one may hear the teachings and reflect upon their meaning, as explained in the seventh fascicle of the *Cheng weishi lun*. Seventh question: Bound by how many of the three realms, and so forth, are they? Answer: One opinion states that hearing is bound by the desire and form realms; reflection is bound solely by the desire realm; cultivation is common to being bound by the upper two realms and being unbound. The true meaning is that wisdom derived from hearing is common to being bound by the desire and form realms and being unbound; wisdom derived from reflection is bound by the desire realm and is unbound; wisdom derived from cultivation is as stated before. As for the two wisdoms of hearing and reflection being common to being unbound: they rely solely on stages of the form realm, because hearing has categories [there], and the mode of activity of reflection is extensive [there]. All three take both bound and unbound as their objects. Eighth question: How many are with-training, and so forth? Answer: Wisdom derived from cultivation is common to all three types. As for the two wisdoms of hearing and reflection, one opinion states they are solely neither-with-training-nor-beyond-training. The true meaning is that they are solely with-training, and neither-with-training-nor-beyond-training, because it is stated that a Buddha does not have them. If in the person beyond training there is wholesome [wisdom] that accords with the anāsrava, which is also called 'beyond training', then the two wisdoms of hearing and reflection are also common to beyond-training; all three take all three types as their objects. Ninth question: Abandoned by how many [paths of] seeing, and so forth, are they? Answer: If by abandonment through separation from bondage: one opinion states that hearing and reflection are abandoned solely by cultivation; because they are not defiled, they are not abandoned by seeing; because they are not anāsrava, they are not non-abandonable. The *Cheng weishi lun* states that the eleven wholesome [factors] and others are not abandoned by seeing. The *Yogācārabhūmi* states that the five faculties of faith and others are abandoned solely by cultivation and are not non-abandonable. Wisdom derived from cultivation is abandoned solely by cultivation and is non-abandonable, because it is common to the anāsrava. If based on abandonment through non-arising, they are also common to being abandoned by seeing, because it is said that the absorption of non-conception and others are abandoned solely by seeing. This is as the meaning of the two kinds of abandonment is explained in the eighth fascicle of the *Cheng weishi lun*. Tenth question: How many are attained through preparatory effort, attained through separation from defilement, and attained at birth? Answer: None of these three kinds of wisdom are attained at birth, because they are not dark or dull. All are attained through preparatory effort, because they are wholesome through preparatory effort. All are attained through separation from defilement: by separating from the hindrances of the third stage one attains the superior three wisdoms; by separating from the defilements of the eighth stage one attains the anāsrava three wisdoms; and also by separating from the defilements of the ninth stage one attains superior wisdom derived from cultivation. Even if there was practice in previous lives, in the present life one certainly does not obtain these three spontaneously, so they are not attained at birth, since one must depend on a little effort to be able to attain them. Those accomplished by a Buddha are definitely attained through separation from defilement, because there is no preparatory effort. The stages of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas are common to both kinds of attainment, because after the eighth stage there is no striven preparatory effort, but there is spontaneous preparatory effort.