大乘法苑義林章 6.32

6.32

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.