淨名玄論 4.32

4.32

Question: If upon reaching the fruit they transform and are named the two cognitions, then in the cause they are equally named the two wisdoms. Why was it stated earlier that prajñā is called wisdom, while upāya is not named wisdom? Answer: Names established in the cause and the fruit each have their rationale. In the approach of the fruit, illuminating the realm of all emptiness is named the cognition of all; illuminating the realm of all existence is named the cognition of all aspects. Being named solely according to their objects, it is appropriate that both be called cognitions. In the approach of the cause, real wisdom is named according to its object, while upāya is named according to its function; thus they cannot both be called wisdom. Question: If so, why are the path-wisdom and the wisdom of the aspects of the path of a bodhisattva both named wisdom? Answer: Wisdom in the causal stage naturally has many approaches, and their designations vary. Path-wisdom and the wisdom of the aspects of the path are also named according to their objects, so it is appropriate that both be called wisdom. Question: If so, one should merely say that path-wisdom and the wisdom of the aspects of the path transform upon reaching the fruit and are named the cognition of all and the cognition of all aspects. Why say that prajñā and upāya transform and are named the two cognitions? Answer: The treatise states: "Named prajñā in the causal stage, it conversely is named sarvajñā." In the causal stage, the principle of upāya is skillful, transforming and being named the cognition of all aspects. That the two wisdoms transform and are named the two cognitions goes without saying.