金剛經纂要刊定記 2.72

2.72

Now, the types of prajñā are explained differently across various traditions. According to what the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says, there are three kinds: first, literary [prajñā], which is the teaching that is the signifier; second, contemplative [prajñā], which is the wisdom that is the cognizing subject; third, ultimate-reality [prajñā], which is the object-realm cognized. Later, Kumārajīva expanded these into five kinds: namely, within contemplative [prajñā] he opened up the retinue, which is the accompanying five aggregates and wholesome roots such as heat; within ultimate-reality [prajñā] he opened up the objective realm, which is the realm of conventional truth. Among these five, only contemplative [prajñā] is an appositional compound (karmadhāraya), while the rest are all dependent determinative compounds (tatpuruṣa). Dayun explained them so that all five are karmadhāraya, stating: because the nature of letters is empty, it is prajñā; because the retinue and objective realm are identical with letters; and ultimate reality is the dharmakāya. The *Awakening of Faith* says: "In reliance on this dharmakāya it is named original enlightenment." However, although there are three and although there are five, the three are correct. Why so? Because all that is illuminated by prajñā is ultimate reality, not tathatā alone. Therefore the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Illuminating the emptiness of form and so forth is called real nature." The true principle of the emptiness of nature is free from distortion and is not deceptive; to see emptiness within emptiness is also called distortion, and to be unattached to emptiness is the true dharma. Form and so forth are deceptive and delude human eyes. Hence we know that simply in terms of being non-distorted and free from deception, it is ultimate reality; thus both the ultimate and conventional truths together constitute a single ultimate reality. Wholesome roots such as heat and the rest of the retinue have the nature of wisdom; since their corresponding and concomitant [factors] are all contemplative, we know that contemplative [prajñā] subsumes the retinue. Therefore, although speaking of three, they already subsume the five; since this accords with the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, it must tally with the profound sūtra. Hence the three are correct. Now, when various masters establish the central doctrine, some take it to be contemplative [prajñā], and some take it to be ultimate-reality [prajñā] alone; neither of these hits the mark. Moreover, what is signified in this sūtra is, in every case, detachment from marks; how could it be contemplative [prajñā] alone? Furthermore, teaching and transforming sentient beings to sever doubts and break attachments—how could that be ultimate-reality [prajñā] alone? For this reason, the present commentary adopts both together as the central doctrine.