仁王護國般若經疏 1.9

1.9

「般若」者，此云智慧，即《智論》四十二卷中釋也，開善藏法師並用此說。論第七十又有一解云：般若不可稱。般若甚深極重，智慧輕薄，是故不能稱。莊嚴旻師以此文說般若名含眾義，智慧唯是一門，非正翻譯。詳二師說各成諍競，今為通之。夫般若者，自有二種：一實、二權。權即可翻，實則不可。實則圓教，權則前三。又權不可翻，即三藏實色不可令色即是空。實即可翻，即三智也，通教一切智、別教道種智、圓教一切種智。豈可各固一見以局大方？火炎不可取，實當有在也。然智與慧，經論解殊。《成實》合釋，云「真慧名智」，即慧是智也。《淨名》離說，「知一切眾生心念，如應說法，起於智業，不取不捨入一相門。」起於慧業者，釋云：智是有、慧是空，有智故不住空，有慧故不住有。今此般若具翻八部。有人云：《天王》一部即仁王部攝。此解不可。若如《大經》中明人王亦天王，斯則可也。

'Prajñā' is rendered here as wisdom (zhihuì); this is the explanation found in the forty-second fascicle of the Treatise on the Great Prajñāpāramitā, which was also adopted by Dharma Master Kaishan Zhizang. In the seventieth fascicle of the Treatise, there is yet another explanation, which states: 'Prajñā cannot be weighed. Prajñā is extremely profound and exceedingly heavy, whereas wisdom is light and shallow; therefore, it cannot be weighed.' Master Min of Zhuangyan used this passage to argue that the name 'prajñā' contains multiple meanings, whereas 'wisdom' is only a single gate, and hence not an accurate translation. Examining the expositions of these two masters, each leads to disputes; now I shall harmonize them. In general, there are two kinds of prajñā: first, ultimate; second, provisional. The provisional can indeed be translated, whereas the ultimate cannot. The ultimate belongs to the perfect teaching, whereas the provisional belongs to the preceding three. Furthermore, the provisional cannot be translated, as in the Tripiṭaka teaching where real form cannot be made identical to emptiness; the ultimate can indeed be translated, as in the three wisdoms: the sarvajñatā of the shared teaching, the mārgākārajñatā of the distinctive teaching, and the sarvākārajñatā of the perfect teaching. How can each person cling firmly to a single view to restrict the universal expanse? A blazing fire cannot be grasped; the truth must have its proper place. However, as for zhi (knowledge) and hui (insight/wisdom), scriptures and treatises explain them differently. The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra combines them in explanation, stating: 'True insight is called knowledge,' meaning that insight is knowledge. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa explains them separately: 'Knowing the mental states of all sentient beings and expounding the Dharma in accordance with them gives rise to the activities of knowledge; neither grasping nor rejecting, entering the gate of the single mark, gives rise to the activities of insight.' The commentary explains: knowledge is existence, insight is emptiness; having knowledge, one does not dwell in emptiness; having insight, one does not dwell in existence. Now, this prajñā has been completely translated across eight texts. Someone says: 'The Heavenly King text is included within the Benevolent Kings class.' This explanation is not acceptable. If, as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, it clarifies that human kings are also heavenly kings, then this would be acceptable.