法華玄論 4.133

4.133

次問智慧與方便二名。然二智俱是巧妙，何故方便獨受善巧之名耶？舊釋云：通則皆例，別則不齊。方便於無三中說三，善巧義彰；實智於一上說一，巧義不顯，故與其智慧之目也。難曰：於一上說一不與巧名。於一上說一不應與其妙稱。而下文歎實智則云甚深微妙。此則實智正是微妙善巧也。又問：若實智沒其功名當其妙稱，權智應沒其妙名當其巧稱。若爾，實智妙而無巧，無巧應是拙；權智巧而非妙，非妙應是麁。

Next, questioning the two names 'wisdom' and 'skillful means': Both wisdoms are wondrous and skillful, so why does skillful means alone receive the designation of being adaptive skill? The traditional explanation states: Generally speaking, they are all comparable; specifically speaking, they are not equal. Skillful means speaks of three where there are no three, so the meaning of adaptive skill is manifest; real wisdom speaks of one regarding the one, so the meaning of skill is not evident; therefore, it is given the title of wisdom. Objection: If speaking of one regarding the one is not given the name of skill, speaking of one regarding the one should also not be given the appellation of subtle. Yet the text below praises real wisdom by saying 'profound, exceedingly subtle.' This indicates that real wisdom is precisely exceedingly subtle and adaptively skillful. Furthermore, it is asked: If real wisdom drops its name of efficacy to correspond to the designation 'subtle,' provisional wisdom should drop its designation 'subtle' to correspond to the name 'skillful.' If so, real wisdom would be subtle without skill, and lacking skill it must be crude; provisional wisdom would be skillful but not subtle, and not being subtle it must be coarse.