[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [淨名玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780) › 4.11 # 淨名玄論 4.11 淨名玄論 4.11 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.11) 次、翻無翻義。有人言：般若名含五義，不可正翻，宜以慧當其名。如《釋論》七十一卷云「般若定實相，甚深極重。智慧輕薄，故不能稱於般若。」此格提用之。今謂不然，《釋論》乃明不可稱義，非不可翻也。問：稱與翻何異？答：稱則天竺已明，翻則成於振旦。反彼為此，前後不同，義門各異。又論云「般若定實相，故不可稱，不言多含故、不可稱故。」此釋為謬矣。復有人言：般若不可稱者，此明觀照智慧不能稱實相般若。實相般若性相常住，觀照智慧會境始生。故實相為深重，觀照智為輕薄。北人釋也。是亦不然，經以五歎歎於般若，不歎實相，云何言實相深重耶？又言：般若定實相，則實相為所定、般若為能定。若言實相為深重者，可以實相還定實相耶？復有人言：智慧輕薄，不能稱般若者，此是世間智慧、離生智慧、二乘智慧不能稱量菩薩大智慧耳。何者、大智慧照實相理、導成眾行，餘淺智慧豈能稱那？此南方人釋也。今謂不然，唯云智慧不能稱於般若，則不言淺慧、不稱深慧。又淺深俱名為慧，則俱是輕薄，並不能稱般若也。今依論釋之。論云「般若定實相故深重，智慧不能稱也」，所言定者，定是契會之名。夫萬化非無宗，而宗之者無相虛宗；非無契，而契之者無心。故聖人以無心之妙慧，契彼無相之虛宗，則內外並冥、緣智俱寂。智慧是知照之名，豈能稱絕觀般若？問：般若云何能契會實相？答：由實相生般若，故般若能契會實相也。問：依此釋者猶是淺智，不能稱於深智。答：深則愚智皆絕，淺則猶有知照，故非淺智不稱深智也。問：定實相既是契會之名，與舊辨冥會義何異耶？答：語同而意異。但釋冥會，自有二師：一云即會是冥，以符合故冥。冥契不乖，故會無優劣也。此莊嚴龍光之義。二云會是符合之名，冥是混一之義，則冥勝而會劣也。何者？因中有四義故未冥：一或未盡、二體有生滅、三智未周圓、四體依方所，故但稱會。佛果離此四義，故所以談冥。冥與無生為一，則境智不分、無應照異，而無生不乖俗、冥亦不妨會。佛果舉體冥、舉體會，會故應照滿十方、冥故一切皆絕。今總問之，冥既與境混一者，智為成境、為不作境耶？若不作境，云何言一？若智作境者，境既無知，智亦無知。智既有知，則境亦應爾，以其一故也。若言與法性同絕故言冥會，猶與法性異者，即於會冥之日猶見境智為二。何得經云「菩薩般若相應，不見應與不應、合與不合」耶？又具四義故方成冥者，般若教，佛智猶有生滅則不得稱冥。照無等法性義，故無冥實相之義也。問：云何名甚深極重？答：夫論可稱，則不名極重。良由極重，故不可稱。論主欲釋經不可稱義，故云深也。問：但應言重，何故復云甚深？答：為欲簡擇重義，非如重物重，乃是甚深，故云重耳。問：但言深重，何故復云極耶？答：三乘同觀，並契實相。但二乘猶如兔馬，未盡其原，故不得般若之名、不名甚深極重。今欲簡二乘，明菩薩照盡其原，得名般若，故云甚深極重也。問：智慧何故云輕薄耶？答：般若體絕緣觀，智慧名定於觀。般若體絕愚智，智慧名主知照。般若體絕名字，智慧則猶涉名言。故對般若之重，明智慧之輕；對般若之深，辨智慧之淺。淺猶薄也。問：般若體絕愚智，何故立智慧名耶？答：不知何以目之，強名智慧。雖立智慧之名，實不稱般若之體。問：但應言般若體深重、般若名輕薄，智慧體深重、智慧名輕薄，云何乃言波若深重、智慧輕薄？答：今依梵本，則云般若體深重、般若名輕薄。但用此音，則應云智慧體深重、智慧名輕薄。恐此義難顯，故譯經之人借此方智慧，不能稱梵文般若也。問：不可稱與不可量何異？答：經有五歎，謂大事故起、不可稱事起、不可量事起、無等等事起、不可思議事起。既別有無量事起，則稱非量也。不可量，則取無有邊際。不可稱，明甚深至重。例如〈法稱品〉明舍利不能稱般若經卷，今智慧名義不能稱絕觀般若也。問：論云「智慧小、般若多，故不能稱。」云何為多小耶？答：有人言：實相則無法不自在故多，智慧局之於心故小。今謂不然，前就定實相故，明不可稱。今約多含義，明不可稱。般若體非愚智，能愚能智；智慧唯主於智。故般若多，智慧小。又般若定實相，實相既遍，般若亦多；智慧不爾，故云小也。問：已知般若翻不翻義。方便復云何？答：常啼云「漚和俱舍羅，大師方便力」。漚和為方便，俱舍羅名為勝智。般若之巧，名為漚和。其用既勝，名勝智也。《淨名》以方便為父，取其生成之能。《大品》以漚和為師，明有訓誨之德。善巧化物，不證二乘，皆大師之力也。 > Next, the meaning of translating versus not translating. Some say: Because the name prajñā contains five meanings, it cannot be properly translated, and it is appropriate to use "wisdom" to stand for its name. As the seventy-first fascicle of the Dazhidulun states: "Prajñā determines dharmatā; it is profoundly deep and extremely heavy. Wisdom-cognition is light and shallow, and therefore cannot weigh up to prajñā." This \[principle\] was employed by Getti. Now I say this is not so: the Dazhidulun clarifies the meaning of "cannot weigh up to" (chēng), not that it cannot be translated (fān). Question: What is the difference between weighing (chēng) and translating (fān)? Answer: Weighing was already clarified in India, whereas translating is accomplished in China. Rendering the other into this involves different stages and distinct doctrinal perspectives. Moreover, the treatise states: "Prajñā determines dharmatā, and is therefore incapable of being weighed;" it does not say that it cannot be weighed because it contains multiple meanings. This explanation is mistaken. Again, some say: That prajñā cannot be weighed means that contemplative wisdom-cognition cannot weigh up to prajñā as dharmatā. Prajñā as dharmatā is eternally abiding in nature and characteristic, whereas contemplative wisdom-cognition only arises upon encountering an object. Therefore, dharmatā is deep and heavy, while contemplative cognition is light and shallow. This is the explanation of the Northerners. This is also not so: the sūtra praises prajñā with five praises, but does not praise dharmatā; how could one say that dharmatā is deep and heavy? Furthermore, it says: "Prajñā determines dharmatā"—thus dharmatā is that which is determined, and prajñā is that which determines. If one says that dharmatā is deep and heavy, can dharmatā in turn determine dharmatā? Again, some say: That wisdom-cognition is light and shallow and cannot weigh up to prajñā refers to mundane wisdom-cognition, the wisdom-cognition that departs from birth, and the wisdom-cognition of the two vehicles being unable to measure the great wisdom-cognition of a bodhisattva. Why? Great wisdom-cognition illuminates the principle of dharmatā and guides all practices to completion; how could the other, shallow wisdom-cognitions ever weigh up to it? This is the explanation of the Southerners. Now I say this is not so: it only says that wisdom-cognition cannot weigh up to prajñā, and does not speak of shallow wisdom being unable to weigh up to deep wisdom. Furthermore, shallow and deep are both called "wisdom", and so both would be light and shallow, and neither would be able to weigh up to prajñā. Now I explain it relying on the treatise. The treatise says: "Because prajñā determines dharmatā, it is deep and heavy, and wisdom-cognition cannot weigh up to it." What is called "determining" is a designation for tallying and encountering. The ten thousand transformations are not without a source, yet that which sources them is the signless, empty source; they are not without tallying, yet that which tallies with them is mindlessness. Therefore, the sage, through wondrous wisdom free of mind, tallies with that signless, empty source; then the internal and external both darken into union, and conditions and cognition are both silenced. "Wisdom-cognition" is a designation for knowing and illuminating; how could it weigh up to prajñā that transcends contemplation? Question: How can prajñā tally and encounter dharmatā? Answer: Because prajñā is generated from dharmatā, prajñā can tally and encounter dharmatā. Question: According to this explanation, it is still a shallow cognition being unable to weigh up to a deep cognition. Answer: The deep transcends both ignorance and cognition, whereas the shallow still possesses knowing and illuminating; thus it is not a case of shallow cognition being unable to weigh up to deep cognition. Question: Since "determining dharmatā" is a designation for tallying and encountering, how does it differ from the ancient explanation of dark tallying? Answer: The words are identical, but the intended meaning differs. However, in explaining dark tallying, there are two masters: One says that the encountering itself is the darkening into union, which is dark because they tally in correspondence. The dark tally does not conflict, and therefore the encountering has no superior or inferior. This is the doctrine of Zhuangyan \[Sengmin\] and Longguang \[Huiguan\]. The second says that "encountering" is a name for matching correspondence, while "darkening" has the meaning of blending into one; thus darkening is superior and encountering is inferior. Why? In the cause there are four aspects on account of which there is not yet darkening: first, delusions are not yet exhausted; second, its essence has arising and ceasing; third, cognition is not yet all-round and perfect; fourth, its essence relies on spatial location. Therefore, it is only called "encountering". The fruit of Buddhahood is free from these four aspects, and is thus spoken of as "darkening". When darkening and unarisenness become one, then object and cognition are not divided, and there is no difference between response and illumination; yet unarisenness does not conflict with the conventional, nor does darkening obstruct encountering. The fruit of Buddhahood in its entire essence darkens into union, and in its entire essence encounters: because it encounters, its responsive illumination fills the ten directions; because it darkens into union, all things are completely cut off. Now I ask in general: Since darkening blends into one with the object, does cognition become the object, or does it not make an object? If it does not make an object, how can one speak of unity? If cognition makes an object, then since the object is without knowing, cognition must also be without knowing. Since cognition possesses knowing, the object should also be likewise, because of their unity. If one says that because it is equally cut off along with the dharmatā it is called dark tallying, yet it still differs from the dharmatā, then on the very day of tallying and darkening one would still see object and cognition as two. How then could the sūtra say: "When the bodhisattva's prajñā corresponds, he does not see corresponding and not corresponding, uniting and not uniting"? Furthermore, if it only constitutes darkening because it possesses the four aspects, then according to the prajñā teaching, Buddha-cognition would still have arising and ceasing, and thus could not be called darkening. Because of the meaning of illuminating the peerless dharmatā, there is no meaning of darkening into dharmatā. Question: Why is it called "profoundly deep and extremely heavy"? Answer: What can be weighed is not called extremely heavy. Truly because it is extremely heavy, it cannot be weighed. The author of the treatise wished to explain the sūtra's meaning of "cannot be weighed", and therefore said "deep". Question: It should only have said "heavy"; why did it also say "profoundly deep"? Answer: In order to qualify the meaning of "heavy"—it is not heavy like a heavy physical object, but rather because it is profoundly deep, it is called heavy. Question: It only said "deep and heavy"; why did it also say "extremely"? Answer: The three vehicles share the same contemplation, and all tally with dharmatā. But the two vehicles are like the hare and the horse, failing to reach its depths, and therefore do not obtain the name of prajñā, nor are they called profoundly deep and extremely heavy. Now, wishing to distinguish them from the two vehicles and make clear that the bodhisattva illuminates its depths completely and attains the name of prajñā, it says "profoundly deep and extremely heavy". Question: Why is wisdom-cognition called "light and shallow"? Answer: The essence of prajñā transcends conditions and contemplation, whereas the name "wisdom-cognition" is fixed in contemplation. The essence of prajñā transcends ignorance and cognition, whereas the name "wisdom-cognition" governs knowing and illuminating. The essence of prajñā transcends names and letters, whereas "wisdom-cognition" still involves words and speech. Therefore, in contrast to the heaviness of prajñā, the lightness of wisdom-cognition is clarified; in contrast to the depth of prajñā, the shallowness of wisdom-cognition is distinguished. "Shallow" is equivalent to "thin". Question: The essence of prajñā transcends ignorance and cognition; why is the name "wisdom-cognition" established? Answer: Not knowing how to designate it, one forces the name "wisdom-cognition" upon it. Although the name "wisdom-cognition" is established, in reality it does not weigh up to the essence of prajñā. Question: One should only say that the essence of prajñā is deep and heavy while the name of prajñā is light and shallow, and the essence of wisdom-cognition is deep and heavy while the name of wisdom-cognition is light and shallow; why then does it say that prajñā is deep and heavy while wisdom-cognition is light and shallow? Answer: Now, relying on the Sanskrit text, one would say that the essence of prajñā is deep and heavy, and the name of prajñā is light and shallow. But if one uses this \[Chinese\] pronunciation, one should say that the essence of wisdom-cognition is deep and heavy, and the name of wisdom-cognition is light and shallow. Fearing that this meaning would be difficult to make apparent, the translator of the sūtra borrowed the indigenous word "wisdom-cognition" as unable to weigh up to the Sanskrit word "prajñā". Question: What is the difference between "cannot be weighed" (chēng) and "cannot be measured" (liáng)? Answer: The sūtra has five praises, namely: arising on account of great matters, arising on account of matters that cannot be weighed, arising on account of matters that cannot be measured, arising on account of matters that are peerless, and arising on account of inconceivable matters. Since there is separately "arising on account of immeasurable matters", weighing is not measuring. "Cannot be measured" takes the meaning of having no boundary. "Cannot be weighed" clarifies profound depth and supreme heaviness. For example, the "Chapter on Praising the Dharma" explains that relics cannot weigh up to the fascicles of the prajñā sūtras; here, the name and meaning of wisdom-cognition cannot weigh up to prajñā that transcends contemplation. Question: The treatise states: "Wisdom-cognition is small, and prajñā is great; therefore it cannot weigh up to it." What are "great" and "small"? Answer: Some say: Dharmatā is great because no dharma fails to be autonomous \[within it\], whereas wisdom-cognition is small because it is restricted to the mind. Now I say this is not so: previously it clarified that it cannot be weighed in terms of determining dharmatā; now it clarifies that it cannot be weighed in terms of encompassing multiple meanings. The essence of prajñā is neither ignorance nor cognition, yet it can be ignorant and can be cognitive; wisdom-cognition exclusively governs cognition. Therefore prajñā is great, and wisdom-cognition is small. Furthermore, prajñā determines dharmatā; since dharmatā is all-pervasive, prajñā is also great; wisdom-cognition is not like this, and is therefore called small. Question: We already know the meaning of translating versus not translating prajñā. What about upāya? Answer: Sadāprarudita said: "Upāyakauśalya, the Great Master's power of expedient means." Upāya is "expedient means", and kauśalya is named "superior cognition". The skillfulness of prajñā is named upāya. Since its function is superior, it is called superior cognition. The Vimalakīrti takes upāya as the father, drawing upon its capacity to give birth and bring to completion. The Pañcaviṃśati takes upāya as the teacher, clarifying that it possesses the virtue of instruction. Skillfully transforming beings without realizing \[the fruition of\] the two vehicles are all the power of the Great Master. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.10) - [Next: 4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.12) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780~en-mt.4.11) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.11) · Pramāṇa