淨名玄論 4.11

4.11

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.