大乘法苑義林章 6.34

6.34

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].