金剛般若疏 1.13

1.13

第三、釋般若。般若是外國語，《釋論》有二文：一者、「般若，秦言智慧」，開善用之。次文云「般若深重，智慧輕薄，不可以輕薄智慧秤量深重般若」。莊嚴法師云：般若名含五義，智慧但是一條，非正翻譯。但解智慧，經論不同。《淨名經》分二字解之：知眾生心念，如應說法，起於智業；不取不捨，入一相門，起於慧業。舊釋此文云：智是有解，慧是空解，亦智是化他，慧是自行。《大品》云：道慧、道種慧，一切智、一切種智。此則智慧名通空有也。又因名慧、果秤智，如因名道慧、道種慧，果秤一切智、一切種智。又智名通因果，如三智義，聲聞一切智、菩薩道種智、佛一切種智。又慧名通因果，《法華》云「諸佛平等大慧」也。《成論》文合解智慧兩字云真慧名智，又云慧名智人。又云慧義，經中說解脫智是慧義，故智猶慧也。又《大智論》亦有二文：「般若者，秦言慧也」，又云「秦言智慧」也。問：經論何故言語或出或沒、乍合乍開，不分明一途示人，合分明得解耶？答：聖人非不能一途分明示人，而今有出沒言者，此有深意。以眾生本來有取著之心，以是因緣繫屬於魔，生死不絕，若輪常轉，不悟中道佛性，正觀般若。今若復作一途實說，則更增其依著之心，所以不定出沒，動其生死根識，令逈悟正法，故不定之說為益深矣。若學者定執經論一文以成一家之義者，皆是繫屬魔人耳。又眾生非一國土、一根性、一善知識，是故諸佛種種說法也。問：已知般若名，云何是般若體？答：地論人說，有二種般若：一、真修般若，即第八識；二、緣修般若，即第七識。成論師言：緣真諦心，忘懷絕相。以此解心為般若體。阿毘曇師云：緣四諦理，無漏慧相是般若體。此三解即世盛行，具須破洗，至《大品玄》中廣明。但即世多誦此經，今輒言其要句，冀參玄君子，領其指外。問：今以何為般若？答：若行人了悟顛倒，豁然悟解，假名般若。問：此豁然悟解，豈非心耶？答：此解悟非心非離心。問：云何非心非離心？答：既言心悟解，豈離心耶？此悟心畢竟不起有心無心，豈即心耶？問：若言心悟，還是即心；若言悟此心，不得心有無，便是離心。答：猶言即離，還是不悟。如其得悟，竟有何即離？問：既不即離，應不迷悟。答：迷故言其即離，悟故了無即離。既不即離，竟復何有迷悟耶？可取其意，勿著其言也。

Third, explaining prajñā. Prajñā is a foreign word. The Treatise (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) contains two passages [on it]: First, "Prajñā in the language of Qin is 'wisdom' (zhīhuì)"—Kaishan followed this. The next passage states, "Prajñā is profound and weighty, while zhīhuì is slight and superficial; one cannot weigh profound and weighty prajñā with slight and superficial zhīhuì." Dharma Master Zhuangyan stated: "The name prajñā contains five meanings; zhīhuì is only one of them, not the standard translation." However, in explaining zhīhuì (knowledge and wisdom), sūtras and treatises differ. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra explains the two characters separately: knowing sentient beings' thoughts and preaching the Dharma according to their needs gives rise to the activities of jñāna (zhī); neither grasping nor discarding, entering the gateway of the single characteristic, gives rise to the activities of prajñā (huì). Former commentators explained this text as: zhī is the understanding of existence, huì is the understanding of emptiness; or zhī is transforming others, huì is one's own practice. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra speaks of: the wisdom of the path (mārgajñatā / dàohuì), the wisdom of the aspects of the path (mārgākārajñatā / dàozhǒnghuì), knowledge of all phenomena (sarvajñatā / yīqièzhī), and knowledge of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā / yīqièzhǒngzhī). Here, then, the names zhī and huì apply to both emptiness and existence. Furthermore, the cause is named huì and the fruit is termed zhī, as the cause is called the wisdom of the path and the wisdom of the aspects of the path, and the fruit is termed knowledge of all phenomena and knowledge of all aspects. Furthermore, the name zhī applies to both cause and fruit, as in the doctrine of the three wisdoms: the śrāvakas' knowledge of all phenomena, the bodhisattvas' knowledge of the aspects of the path, and the Buddhas' knowledge of all aspects. Furthermore, the name huì applies to both cause and fruit, as the Lotus Sūtra speaks of "the equal great wisdom of all Buddhas." A passage in the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra combines and explains the two characters zhīhuì, stating, "True huì is called zhī," and also states, "Huì is named a person of zhī." It also says regarding the meaning of huì, "The sūtra says that the wisdom (zhī) of liberation is the meaning of huì"; hence zhī is equivalent to huì. Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also has two passages: "Prajñā in the language of Qin is huì," and also "in the language of Qin is zhīhuì." Question: Why in sūtras and treatises are the expressions sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, suddenly combined and suddenly separated, rather than clearly showing people a single path so that they can definitely attain understanding? Answer: It is not that the sages are unable to clearly show people a single path; that they now use both explicit and implicit statements has a profound meaning. Because sentient beings originally possess grasping minds, due to these conditions they are tied to Māra, saṃsāra does not cease, constantly turning like a wheel, and they do not awaken to the middle way, Buddha-nature, and prajñā of correct contemplation. Now, if they were to make one definite, real exposition, this would only increase their mind of reliance and attachment; therefore, they do not fix [the teaching] as explicit or implicit, but stir their root consciousness of saṃsāra to cause them to profoundly awaken to the correct Dharma. Thus, the unfixed teachings provide profound benefit. If scholars obstinately grasp a single passage from the sūtras and treatises to establish the doctrine of a single school, they are all people tied to Māra. Furthermore, sentient beings do not share a single land, a single capacity, or a single spiritual friend; therefore, the Buddhas preach the Dharma in various ways. Question: Having learned the name of prajñā, what is the essence of prajñā? Answer: Masters of the Daśabhūmika School state that there are two kinds of prajñā: first, prajñā cultivated through the real, which is the eighth consciousness; second, prajñā cultivated through conditions, which is the seventh consciousness. Masters of the *Tattvasiddhi state: the mind taking the ultimate truth as condition, forgetting concerns and terminating marks—they take this understanding mind to be the essence of prajñā. Abhidharma masters state: taking the principle of the four noble truths as condition, the mark of undefiled wisdom is the essence of prajñā. These three explanations are widespread in the world; all must be refuted and washed away, which will be expounded in detail in the Mysterious Meaning of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā. However, since many people in the world chant this sūtra, I now venture to state its essential points, hoping that gentlepersons delving into the mysterious may grasp what lies beyond the words. Question: Now, what do you consider prajñā to be? Answer: If a practitioner fully realizes delusions and suddenly awakens to understanding, this is conventionally designated prajñā. Question: Is this sudden awakening and understanding not the mind? Answer: This understanding and awakening is neither mind nor apart from mind. Question: Why is it neither mind nor apart from mind? Answer: Since it is called the mind's awakening and understanding, how could it be apart from the mind? Yet this awakened mind ultimately does not give rise to the existence of mind or non-existence of mind; how could it be identical to the mind? Question: If one says the mind awakens, that is still identical to the mind; if one says it awakens to this mind without apprehending the existence or non-existence of mind, that is being apart from mind. Answer: If you still speak of identity and separation, you are still unawakened. If you attain awakening, what identity or separation could there be after all? Question: Since it is neither identical nor separate, there should be neither delusion nor awakening. Answer: Because of delusion one speaks of identity and separation; because of awakening one completely realizes there is neither identity nor separation. Since there is neither identity nor separation, how after all could there be delusion and awakening? One should grasp its intention and not cling to its words.