[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) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 2.6 # 中觀論疏 2.6 中觀論疏 2.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.6) 問：直觀空為波若、於空不證為方便者，亦直照有名為波若、取照有不著名曰漚和。答：以羅什意釋者，觀空不證雖是漚和，而從波若受名，沒其巧稱。亦照有之義雖是波若，從漚和受名，沒其波若之稱，而從方便則受名。而肇師正用斯意，故云「直達法相名之為慧，照空不證、涉有不著，二巧之義名曰漚和。」問：亦得直照空義名為波若，照空不證及以照有并涉有不著。此之三義皆是漚和耶？答：亦有斯義。波若直照諸法實相，故名為體，體即無二。方便即是波若之巧用，用有多門。一能照空不證於空義，此一巧也。次觀空即能照有，此二巧也。三涉有復能無著，此三巧也。總此諸巧悉名方便，故用金為體，金上諸巧皆名方便。問：此與前釋相違，云何會通？答：合照空有皆名波若，即合取二巧皆名方便。即波若具照空有、方便具空有二巧，故以波若名慧，即慧有二照；方便無有慧名，故但稱二巧。此就二照二巧釋之。若直照實相名波若，取觀空不證及照有不著悉是波若之用，故皆名方便。此就體一用多門釋。此皆合離適時，眾義無違、異文皆會，雖三種不同，猶一意耳。問：若《淨名經》以二慧為法身父母者，何故《瓔珞經》以二諦為父母耶？答：若以二慧名為佛，二慧由二諦而生，即以二諦為父母。若言二慧生佛故以二慧為父母，二慧復由二諦而生，即二諦為祖父母。二諦復由八不而正，即八不為祖中之祖。故八不為眾教之宗歸、群聖之根本，顯在於斯。 > Question: If directly contemplating emptiness is prajñā, and not realizing emptiness \[as final\] is expedient means, then directly illuminating existence should also be named prajñā, and illuminating existence without clinging should be named upāya. Answer: To explain it according to Kumārajīva's intention: although contemplating emptiness without realizing it is upāya, it receives its name from prajñā, suppressing the designation of ingenuity. Likewise, although the meaning of illuminating existence is prajñā, it receives its name from upāya, suppressing the designation of prajñā and taking its name from expedient means. Master Sengzhao precisely applied this intention, saying: "Directly penetrating the characteristics of dharmas is termed wisdom; illuminating emptiness without realizing it \[as final\] and engaging with existence without clinging to it—these two aspects of ingenuity are termed upāya." Question: Is it also permissible that the meaning of directly illuminating emptiness is named prajñā, while illuminating emptiness without realizing it, illuminating existence, and engaging with existence without clinging—these three aspects—are all upāya? Answer: There is also this meaning. Prajñā directly illuminates the real mark of all dharmas, and is therefore called the substance, and the substance has no duality. Expedient means is the ingenious functioning of prajñā, and the functioning has many facets. First, being able to illuminate emptiness without realizing emptiness \[as final\]—this is one ingenuity. Next, contemplating emptiness and immediately being able to illuminate existence—this is a second ingenuity. Third, engaging with existence and being able to be free from clinging—this is a third ingenuity. Taken together, these ingenuities are all named expedient means. Therefore, taking gold as the substance, all the various ingenuities upon the gold are named expedient means. Question: This contradicts the previous explanation; how are they to be harmonized? Answer: Illuminating both emptiness and existence together are both called prajñā, and taking both ingenuities together is called expedient means. Thus prajñā fully illuminates emptiness and existence, and expedient means fully possesses the two ingenuities of emptiness and existence. Therefore, taking prajñā as wisdom, wisdom has two illuminations; expedient means does not bear the name of wisdom, so it is only called the two ingenuities. This is explained in terms of the two illuminations and the two ingenuities. If directly illuminating the real mark is named prajñā, and contemplating emptiness without realizing it as well as illuminating existence without clinging are taken as the functioning of prajñā, they are therefore both named expedient means. This is explained in terms of one substance and many facets of functioning. These are merely combining or separating according to the occasion; none of the meanings are contradictory, and different textual passages are all reconciled. Though the three modes are different, they are still of one single meaning. Question: If the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa takes the two wisdoms as the parents of the Dharma body, why does the Yingluo jing take the two truths as the parents? Answer: If the two wisdoms are called the Buddha, and the two wisdoms are produced from the two truths, then the two truths are taken as the parents. If one says that the two wisdoms give birth to the Buddha and thus the two wisdoms are the parents, while the two wisdoms in turn are produced from the two truths, then the two truths are the grandparents. And the two truths are in turn corrected through the eight negations, so the eight negations are the ancestors of the ancestors. Therefore, that the eight negations are the central destination of all teachings and the primal origin of all the noble ones is made clear here. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.5) - [Next: 2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.7) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.2.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.2.6) · Pramāṇa