觀音玄義 1.61

1.61

次明不思議境智者，若自他共無因等四句俱非境智者，今諸經論所明，或從自生、他生、共生、無因等，若不爾者，云何辯境智耶？答：經中所明，皆是四悉檀赴緣，假名字說，無四性執。若人樂聞自生境智，即說境是自境、智是自智，以赴其欣欲之心；或時宜聞自境、自智，聞必生善；或時對治，說自生境智，說必破惑；有時說此，令即悟道。若無四悉檀益，諸佛如來不空說法，雖作四說，無四種執，無執故無見愛，眾生聞者如快馬見鞭影，即破惑入道，故名為智，此智所照名之為境。如是通達則識苦集道滅，三寶四諦宛然具足。若以智照境，入空取證，成真諦理內思議境智，如前說。若不以果為證，知此境智但有名字，名為境智。是字不在內、外、中間，是字不住亦不不住，是字無所有故。雖作四句明境智，實不分別四句境智；雖作四句聞境智，實不得四句境智；雖體達四句境智，實不作四句思量境智。言語道斷，心行處滅，不可四句思惟圖度，故名不思議境智。《金光明》云「不思議智照不思議智境。」此具如《大本玄義》境智妙中廣說。龍樹先破一異時方，然後釋如是我聞等義，今類此先破理外境智，後明不思議四悉檀，悉檀義如《大本玄義》。夫依名字為便，應先明觀智，次辯世境之音；若解義為便，前明世境，次辯觀智。如先有境可得論觀，若未有境，何所可觀？譬如境鼓後方映擊，今從義便，先明世音，後論觀智也。

Next, explaining the inconceivable object and wisdom: if the four propositions of self, other, both, and without cause are all not object and wisdom, why do the various sūtras and treatises now explain them as sometimes arising from self, arising from other, arising from both, or without cause? If it were not so, how could object and wisdom be explicated? Answer: What is explained in the sūtras is in all cases addressing capacities by means of the four siddhāntas, spoken with provisional names, without attachment to the four self-natures. If someone delights in hearing of self-born object and wisdom, one explains that the object is an object in itself and wisdom is wisdom in itself, so as to address their heart's desire. Or sometimes it is suitable to hear of self-object and self-wisdom, and hearing it will surely produce good. Or sometimes for antidotal purposes, one speaks of self-born object and wisdom, and speaking it will surely break delusion. Sometimes one speaks of this to cause them to awaken immediately to the path. If there were no benefit from the four siddhāntas, the Buddhas, Tathāgatas, would not speak the Dharma in vain. Although they give the four explanations, they are free from the four kinds of attachment. Because they are free from attachment, they are free from views and craving. When sentient beings hear it, like a swift horse seeing the shadow of the whip, they immediately break delusions and enter the path; therefore it is called wisdom, and that which this wisdom illuminates is called the object. Penetrating in this way, one recognises suffering, origin, the path, and cessation, and the Three Jewels and four truths are distinctly and fully complete. If one uses wisdom to illuminate the object, entering into emptiness to attain realization, this constitutes the conceivable object and wisdom internal to the truth of the real, as explained before. If one does not take the fruit as realization, knowing that this object and wisdom have only names, and are called object and wisdom—this name is not inside, outside, or in between; this name does not abide, nor does it not abide, because this name is non-existent. Although one explains object and wisdom using the four propositions, one does not truly discriminate the object and wisdom of the four propositions; although one hears of object and wisdom using the four propositions, one does not truly grasp the object and wisdom of the four propositions; although one thoroughly realizes the object and wisdom of the four propositions, one does not truly calculate the object and wisdom of the four propositions. The path of words is cut off, and the place of mental activity is extinguished; it cannot be deliberated or measured by the four propositions, so it is called inconceivable object and wisdom. The *Suvarṇaprabhāsa* says: 'Inconceivable wisdom illuminates the inconceivable object of wisdom.' This is fully explained in detail in the 'Wonder of Object and Wisdom' of the *General Meaning of the Great Text*. Nāgārjuna first refuted oneness, difference, time, and direction, and only then explained meanings such as 'Thus have I heard.' Now, following this example, we first refute the object and wisdom external to the principle, and later clarify the inconceivable four siddhāntas; the meaning of the siddhāntas is as in the *General Meaning of the Great Text*. As a matter of convenience regarding names, one should first clarify the wisdom of contemplation and next explicate the sounds of the worldly object; if convenience in understanding the meaning is preferred, one first clarifies the worldly object and next explicates the wisdom of contemplation. Just as there must first be an object before contemplation can be discussed—if there were not yet an object, what could be contemplated? It is like a drum being struck only after it is presented. Now, following the convenience of meaning, we first clarify the sounds of the world and later discuss the wisdom of contemplation.