淨名玄論 4.24

4.24

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.