[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) › 4.24 # 淨名玄論 4.24 淨名玄論 4.24 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.24) 問：舊云實慧、方便慧。方便並皆稱慧，何故二道不得俱名般若？答：外國名般若，此方翻為慧；梵本名漚和，此土云方便。譯經之人欲定彼此方言，故分於二道。若並云般若，則兩名相濫。故叡公述羅什譯經之體云「胡音失者，正之以天竺。秦言謬者，定之以字義。不可翻者，即而書之。」故知二道不得但稱般若。問：若爾，舊何得云實慧、方便慧？答：欲明實與方便俱有鑒照之功，故悉稱慧耳。此是義釋，非立二道之名。立二道之名，但云慧與方便也。問：何故般若名慧、方便不名慧耶？答：通而言之，般若既照，得名為慧；方便亦照，亦得稱慧。方便既巧，般若亦巧，但立此二名，欲相開避、隱顯互說。般若顯其照名、隱其巧稱，方便顯其巧稱、隱其照名。所以然者，般若從實相境立名，又當其體，故顯照隱巧。方便不從照俗境立名，但取功用，故顯巧沒照。又慧名照空，波若既是空慧，所以名慧。方便涉有，不得名慧。問：般若照空名慧，方便涉有應為智。答：如前釋之，方便非不照有，正取功能，故不云智也。問：何以知般若為體、方便為用？答：《釋論》第百卷云「問曰：上已付囑竟，今何故復囑累？答：上說般若體，今說方便用。」故知般若為體、方便為用。論又云「般若與方便，本體是一，而隨義有異。譬如金，為種種物。」此則明權實一體，約義分二。金喻般若之體，金上之巧譬於方便，方便為用。 > Question: In the past it was said "real wisdom and expedient wisdom." Since upāya is also called wisdom, why cannot both paths equally be named prajñā? Answer: In foreign lands it is called prajñā, which here is translated as wisdom (hui); in the Sanskrit text it is called upāya, which in this land is called fangbian (expedient). Translators of the scriptures wished to establish the languages of both lands, and therefore separated them into two paths. If both were called prajñā, the two names would become conflated. Thus Master Sengrui described Kumārajīva's style of translating scriptures: "Where the Central Asian pronunciation was mistaken, he corrected it by the Indic; where the Qin language was erroneous, he fixed it according to the meaning of the characters; what could not be translated, he transcribed as it was." Hence we know that the two paths must not both merely be called prajñā. Question: If so, how could past \[masters\] say real wisdom and expedient wisdom? Answer: Wishing to clarify that both the real and the expedient possess the efficacy of discerning illumination, both are simply called wisdom. This is an interpretive explanation, not the establishment of the names of the two paths. In establishing the names of the two paths, one merely says wisdom and upāya. Question: Why is prajñā called wisdom, while upāya is not called wisdom? Answer: Speaking generally, since prajñā illuminates, it can be named wisdom; since upāya also illuminates, it can also be called wisdom. Since upāya is skillful, prajñā is also skillful. But establishing these two names is intended to keep them distinct, speaking of them with alternation between the implicit and the explicit. Prajñā makes explicit its name of illumination and leaves implicit its designation of skillfulness; upāya makes explicit its designation of skillfulness and leaves implicit its name of illumination. Why so? Prajñā establishes its name from the object of dharmatā, and moreover is itself the essence; therefore it makes illumination explicit and leaves skillfulness implicit. Upāya does not establish its name from illuminating the saṃvṛti object, but merely takes its functional efficacy; therefore it makes skillfulness explicit and submerges illumination. Furthermore, wisdom means illuminating emptiness; since prajñā is wisdom of emptiness, it is named wisdom. Upāya engages with existence, and cannot be named wisdom. Question: If prajñā illuminating emptiness is named wisdom (hui), then upāya engaging with existence should be cognition (zhi). Answer: As explained before, upāya is not without illuminating existence, but precisely takes its function and capacity; therefore it is not called cognition. Question: How is it known that prajñā is the essence and upāya is the function? Answer: Fascicle 100 of the Dazhidulun says: "Question: The entrustment was already completed above; why entrust it again now? Answer: Above, the essence of prajñā was explained; now, the function of upāya is explained." Hence we know that prajñā is the essence and upāya is the function. The treatise also says: "Prajñā and upāya are originally one in essence, but differ according to meaning. Just like gold, which is made into various objects." This clarifies that the provisional and real are one in essence, distinguished into two according to meaning. Gold is a metaphor for the essence of prajñā; the craftsmanship wrought upon the gold is an analogy for upāya, upāya being the function. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.23) - [Next: 4.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.25) - [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.4.24) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.4.24) · Pramāṇa