仁王般若經疏 1.4

1.4

第一釋名者，但諸經受名不同，自有單法立名、或單譬受稱、或單人立名、或法譬雙說、或人法雙彰。所言單法者，如《大涅槃》等，從果法立名；《大品般若》、《十地漸備》從因受稱。單譬者，《枯樹》、《七車譬喻》等經，直引譬事得名也。單人者，如《七女》、《老女》等經也。法譬通說者，如《華嚴》、《法華》、《金剛般若》等經也。人法雙彰者，如《維摩》、《勝鬘》、《四天王問般若》、《仁王般若》等經也。所言「佛說」者，自覺覺他故名為佛，聖言宣暢故名說。「仁王」，仁者，施恩布德，故名為仁；統化自在，故名為王。「護國」者，仁王是能護，國土是所護，由仁王如法治道，萬民適樂、國土安穩。若仁王望般若，般若是能護，由持般若故仁王安穩；由人柄法，仁王是能護，般若是所護。今仁王般若皆是能護，國土是所護。「般若」者，《大智論》有二釋。第四十三卷解：般若，秦言智慧。開善藏師並用此翻。佛國土語般若，此翻智慧。又第七十卷解：般若不可稱。般若定實相，甚深極重，智慧輕薄，是故不可稱。莊嚴旻師以此文云：般若名含五義，智慧止是一條，非正翻譯。二師各執即成論，皆不得般若意。問：論既有二文，今云何通釋？答：且依論解。般若有二種：一方便門、二實相門。所言翻者，約方便門翻為智慧；言不可翻者，般若非愚非智，故云不可翻也。但解智慧，經論不同。《淨名經》云「分二字解，云知一切眾生心念，如應說法，起於智業；不取不捨，入一相門，起於慧業。」舊釋此文，智是有解、慧是空解。今則不爾。眾生心念何必是有？入實相門何必是空？謂善得此意也。《成實論》合解智慧二字，文云「真慧名智」，此意言慧即是智。又云「《慧義經》中說解智是慧義，故名智慧。」合釋也。問：經論何故語言或出或沒或開或合，不分明一途示人耶？答：聖人非不能一途分明示人，而今出沒之言者，此有深意。以眾生本來執著難動，以是因緣繫屬於魔，生死不絕、苦輪常轉、不悟正道。今若復作一途定說，更增其住著，所以不定出沒，動其生死根栽，令得逈悟正法，故不定之說為益厚矣。若學者定執經論一文以成一家之義，為謬甚矣。

First, as for explaining the title: the various sūtras derive their titles differently. Some establish their titles by doctrine alone, or take their designations from a metaphor alone, or establish their titles by a person alone; or both doctrine and metaphor are stated, or both person and doctrine are manifested. What is meant by 'doctrine alone' is like the Mahāparinirvāṇa[-sūtra] and so forth, establishing the title from the fruit-doctrine; the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and the Shidi jianbei [jing] take their designations from the cause. As for 'metaphor alone', sūtras such as The Withered Tree and The Parable of the Seven Carts derive their titles directly by adducing metaphorical events. As for 'person alone', it is like sūtras such as The Seven Maidens and The Old Woman. As for 'stating both doctrine and metaphor together', it is like sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka, the Lotus, and the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā. As for 'manifesting both person and doctrine', it is like sūtras such as the Vimalakīrti, the Śrīmālā, The Prajñā Inquired by the Four Heavenly Kings, and The Prajñā of the Benevolent King. What is meant by 'spoken by the Buddha' is that because he is enlightened himself and enlightens others, he is called Buddha; because the holy words are proclaimed, it is called 'spoken'. As for 'benevolent king': 'benevolent' means bestowing grace and spreading virtue, hence he is called benevolent; exercising sovereign rule at ease, hence he is called king. As for 'protecting the state': the benevolent king is the protector, and the state is that which is protected; because the benevolent king governs according to the Dharma, the myriad people are joyful and the state is secure. If the benevolent king is viewed in relation to prajñā, prajñā is the protector, and because of upholding prajñā the benevolent king is secure; because the person handles the Dharma, the benevolent king is the protector, and prajñā is that which is protected. Now, both the benevolent king and prajñā are the protectors, and the state is that which is protected. As for 'prajñā', the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa has two explanations. The forty-third fascicle explains: 'Prajñā in the language of Qin is wisdom (zhīhuì).' Master Zang of Kaishan used this translation throughout. In the language of the Buddha-land it is prajñā, which is translated here as wisdom. Furthermore, the seventieth fascicle explains: 'Prajñā cannot be named. Prajñā is definitely dharmatā, extremely deep and exceedingly weighty; wisdom is light and shallow, therefore it cannot be named.' Master Min of Zhuangyan, relying on this passage, said: 'The name prajñā contains five meanings, whereas wisdom is merely one item; it is not an accurate translation.' When the two masters each clung to their view, disputes arose; neither attained the meaning of prajñā. Question: Since the treatise has both passages, how are they now reconciled and explained? Answer: Let us explain by relying on the treatise. There are two kinds of prajñā: first, the gate of upāya; second, the gate of dharmatā. What is called translatable is translated as wisdom with reference to the gate of upāya; what is called untranslatable is because prajñā is neither foolish nor wise, hence it is said to be untranslatable. However, regarding the explanation of 'wisdom' (zhīhuì), the sūtras and treatises differ. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states, explaining the two characters separately: 'Knowing the mental thoughts of all sentient beings and expounding the Dharma accordingly arises from the activity of knowledge (zhī); neither grasping nor rejecting and entering the gate of the single mark arises from the activity of wisdom (huì).' The old explanation of this passage took zhī as the understanding of existence and huì as the understanding of emptiness. Now we do not hold this. Why must the mental thoughts of sentient beings be existent? Why must entering the gate of dharmatā be empty? One should skillfully grasp this meaning. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra explains the two characters zhī and huì together, the text stating: 'True wisdom (huì) is called knowledge (zhī)'; the meaning here is that wisdom is itself knowledge. It also states: 'In the Huiyi jing it is said that understanding knowledge (zhī) is the meaning of wisdom (huì), hence it is called wisdom (zhīhuì).' This is an integrated explanation. Question: Why are the words in sūtras and treatises sometimes emerging and sometimes submerging, sometimes opened and sometimes combined, not showing things to people in one single, distinct way? Answer: It is not that the holy ones are unable to show things clearly to people in one single way, but that there is a profound meaning in these emerging and submerging words. Sentient beings are inherently attached and hard to move; through this cause and condition they are bound to Māra, saṃsāra does not cease, the wheel of suffering turns constantly, and they do not awaken to the correct path. Now if there were again a fixed teaching in one single way, it would further increase their abiding attachment; therefore, by not being fixed but emerging and submerging, it stirs the root-foundations of their saṃsāra, causing them to attain a transcendent awakening to the saddharma. Thus the non-fixed teaching provides profound benefit. If scholars rigidly cling to a single passage in a sūtra or treatise to establish the doctrine of a single school, the error is very great indeed.