仁王般若經疏 1.4

1.4

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.