淨名玄論 4.23

4.23

問：前辨智慧名般若，今何故說空為般若？答：果中說因，如云食布。此義應是因中說果，而言果中說因者是逆罰，不應是順討明義。智慧正是般若，實相能生智慧，智慧是實相之子。而於智生，說實相為般若，故言果中說因，南北同此釋也。有人言：佛有三種，一法身佛、二者報身佛、三者化身佛。實相即法身佛。實相可軌名之為法，此法有體故名為身。而實相非佛，能生佛故，所以名佛。二者報身，即修行會實相理。實相既常，報佛亦常。以法常故，諸佛亦常。三化佛，即應物之用。此北土論師釋也。有人言：修空無相於會理圓通，心意識煩惱清淨，此無為般若即是實相。若有心行境，未免生死，即菩薩六度，得十地差別，名有為般若。此南方尚禪師義也。復有人言：實相即真諦理，會此理、煩惱盡，故離生滅、同真如、等法性，無為而無不為，則實於是境也。此亦南方成論義也。今詳釋論意，可得有五句文：一者因中說果，如名實相為般若。二果中說因，如說般若為實相。三當因說因，實相非般若。四當果說果，般若非實相。五非因非果、非境非智。故論釋實相文云「因是一邊、果是一邊，離此二邊，名為中道。緣是一邊、觀是一邊，離此二邊，名為中道。」故知實相未曾因果、亦非境智，而隨緣逐義有上四句不同，眾師不應汎引集文以通圓旨也。

Question: Previously wisdom was distinguished as being called prajñā; why is emptiness now spoken of as prajñā? Answer: The cause is spoken of within the effect, like saying "eating cloth." This meaning should be speaking of the effect within the cause; yet stating that the cause is spoken of within the effect is an inversion, and should not be a direct inquiry to clarify the meaning. Cognition is precisely prajñā; dharmatā can generate cognition, and cognition is the child of dharmatā. Yet based on the arising of cognition, dharmatā is spoken of as prajñā; hence it is called "speaking of the cause within the effect." Both the north and south share this explanation. Some say: The Buddha has three kinds: first, the dharmakāya Buddha; second, the saṃbhogakāya Buddha; third, the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. Dharmatā is precisely the dharmakāya Buddha. Dharmatā can serve as a model, and is called Dharma; this Dharma has an essence, and is therefore called body (kāya). Yet dharmatā is not the Buddha; because it can generate the Buddha, it is named Buddha. Second, the saṃbhogakāya is the realization of the principle of dharmatā through cultivation. Since dharmatā is eternal, the saṃbhoga Buddha is also eternal. Because the Dharma is eternal, the Buddhas are also eternal. Third, the nirmāṇa Buddha is the function that responds to beings. This is the explanation of the Northern treatise masters. Some say: cultivating emptiness and signlessness harmonizes completely with the principle; the defilements of mind, intellect, and consciousness are purified, and this asaṃskṛta prajñā is precisely dharmatā. If there are mental activities engaging objects and one has not escaped saṃsāra, this refers to the bodhisattva's six pāramitās attaining the distinctions of the ten bhūmis, which is called saṃskṛta prajñā. This is the doctrine of Meditation Master Shang of the south. Still others say: dharmatā is the principle of paramārtha-satya; realizing this principle, afflictions are exhausted, and therefore it is free from arising and ceasing, identical with tathatā, equal to dharmatā, doing nothing yet leaving nothing undone—thus it is truly in this object. This is also the doctrine of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra [masters] in the south. Now examining the intention of the Dazhidulun, there can be five propositions: First, speaking of the effect within the cause, such as naming dharmatā as prajñā. Second, speaking of the cause within the effect, such as speaking of prajñā as dharmatā. Third, speaking of the cause in its own right, dharmatā is not prajñā. Fourth, speaking of the effect in its own right, prajñā is not dharmatā. Fifth, neither cause nor effect, neither object nor cognition. Therefore, the treatise text explaining dharmatā says: "Cause is one extreme, effect is one extreme; departing from these two extremes is called the middle way (madhyamā pratipad). The condition is one extreme, contemplation is one extreme; departing from these two extremes is called the middle way." Hence we know that dharmatā has never been cause or effect, nor is it object or cognition; rather, following conditions and according to meaning, there are the above four different propositions. The masters should not loosely cite anthologized passages to understand the perfect purport.