大乘義章 10.61

10.61

三種般若，出《大智論》。言般若者，是外國語，此翻名慧，於法觀達目之為慧。慧義不同，一門說三。三名是何？一文字般若、二觀照般若、三實相般若。此三種中，觀照一種是般若體，文字、實相是般若法，法體合說故有三種。言文字者，所謂《般若波羅蜜經》，此非般若，能詮般若，故名般若。如《涅槃經》，詮涅槃故，說為涅槃，此亦如是。又此文字能生般若，亦名般若，如食生命，說食為命。言觀照者，慧心鑒達，名為觀照。即此觀照體是般若，名觀照般若，如眼是目，名為眼目。於中具辨，開合不定。總唯一智。或分為二，二有多門。一約境分二：謂世諦智、第一義智。世諦智者名一切種，於世法中種別智故；第一義智名一切智，以知一切諸法如故。二真妄分別。六七識中緣照分別是其妄智，第八識中體照之慧是其真智。是義云何？如來藏中恒沙佛法集成心事，是心性淨，而為客塵煩惱所染相似不淨，後息妄染淨相始顯，始顯淨識普照法界，說為真智。三大小分二。方便觀解，緣別彼此，不能滅想普照一切，名之為小。故龍樹云「十八空觀名小智慧。」滅觀般若絕其緣想，而能普照一切法界，名之為大。故龍樹言「般若波羅蜜是大智慧。」或分為三，三有多門：一觀入分三，謂聞、思、修。二約境分三，謂世諦智、第一義智及一實諦智。三隨義分三，謂清淨智、一切智、無礙智，義如後釋。四隨人分三：一一切智，二乘所得；二道種智，菩薩所得；三一切種智，如來所得。亦如後釋。五隨識分三：一事識中分別之智、二妄識中分別之智、三真識中分別智。或分為四，謂聞、思、修、證。或分為五：一聞；二思；三修；四報生識智，變易聖人報無漏心，生便見法，名報生智。此四是妄。五是證智，謂真識中無分別慧。或分十一，所謂十智及如實智。此義如後十一智中具廣分別。廣則無量。問曰：此之觀照般若，體性云何？如龍樹辨，人說不同凡有六種。第一家說，唯有漏慧是般若體。何故如是？如小乘中，佛道樹下方斷煩惱，自斯已前所修智慧皆名般若，故知有漏。第二家說，無漏聖慧是般若體，有漏則非，見理之心名般若故。如此說者，小乘法中佛最後身所修無漏方便是般若，已前悉非。第三家說，從初發心至坐道樹，所修智慧莫問有漏及與無漏悉是般若，至佛轉名薩波若智。如此說者，般若在因，不通於果。第四家說，菩薩所修一切智慧通名有漏、通名無漏，悉是般若，論自釋言「以觀涅槃行佛道故，通名無漏。未斷結盡，通名有漏。」第五家說，菩薩慧中無漏無為不可覩見，無對常智是般若體，無常緣智一切悉非。第六家說，般若之體不可取得，非有非無、非常非無常、非空非實、非陰界入、非有非無、無生無滅、無取無捨，猶如火炎不可甞觸，觸則燒人。般若如是，不可取執，取皆破遣。向前所取一切悉非。問曰：此門與前第五有何差別？釋言：向前第五門者，從緣方便，修生真智為般若體。此說無始佛性真心，從緣修顯得證，通望從來體外畢竟無緣。緣既不有，真亦亡對，絕對真心說為菩薩般若正體，餘者悉非。問曰：此六何者為是？論有兩判：一言皆是。如諸比丘各說彼此中間之義，佛言皆是。此亦如是。一言第六所說者是，前五皆非般若正體，故說為非。觀照如是。言實相者，是前觀照所知境界。諸法體實，名之為實；實之體狀，目之為相。何者是乎？開合不定。總為一實。或分為二，如《地持》說：一事法性，世諦實也；二實法性，真諦實也。或分為三，如《涅槃》說：一者世諦、二第一義諦、三一實諦。或分為四：一者事實，陰界入等；二者法實，苦無常等；三者理實，空無我義；四者性實，佛性真法。又《地持》說四真實義，亦是四實：一世間所知、二學所知、三煩惱障淨所行處法、四智障淨所行處法。如上廣辨。此諸法中，通而論之皆是實相；於中別分，唯第一義名實相耳。此之實相，體非般若，能生般若，故名般若。如色香等體非是欲，能生欲心，說為五欲。問曰：聖智非直知實，亦知虛妄。何故所知唯名實相？釋言：聖人如法而知，知實知虛皆稱前法，故通名實。又知實時達本無妄，故唯言實。問曰：觀照即是般若，此之三種俱名般若，何故不得通名觀照？釋言：亦得。但彼論中為辨般若，文字、觀照、實相別之，是故一種偏名觀照。若復就彼觀照門中以辨其義，亦得說為三種觀照：一文字觀照、二般若觀照、三實相觀照。義既均齊，不得偏取。三種般若，辨之略爾。

The three kinds of prajñā are derived from the Dà zhìdù lùn. "Prajñā" is a foreign word; here it is translated as "wisdom" (huì). Discerning and penetrating dharmas is designated as "wisdom". The meanings of wisdom differ, yet in one approach three are spoken of. What are the names of these three? First, textual prajñā; second, contemplative prajñā; third, true-mark prajñā. Among these three kinds, the single one of contemplation is the essence of prajñā; text and true-mark are the dharmas of prajñā. Because the dharmas and the essence are spoken of together, there are three kinds.

As for "text": it refers to the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. This is not [itself] prajñā, but because it can express prajñā, it is named prajñā. Just as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, because it expresses nirvāṇa, is spoken of as nirvāṇa, this is also like that. Moreover, because these texts can give rise to prajñā, they are also named prajñā, just as food sustains life and so food is spoken of as life.

As for "contemplation": when the mind of wisdom inspects and penetrates, it is named contemplation. This very contemplation is in essence prajñā, and so it is named contemplative prajñā, just as an eye is sight and so is called the "eye of vision". In distinguishing it fully within, expansion and contraction are not fixed. In general it is only a single cognition, or it may be divided into two. The twofold division has many approaches. First, division according to the object: that is, worldly truth cognition and ultimate truth cognition. Worldly truth cognition is named "all-species [cognition]", because it is the cognition of the specific distinctions among worldly dharmas; ultimate truth cognition is named "all-knowledge", because it knows the suchness of all dharmas. Second, the distinction between the true and the false: in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, distinguishing by apprehending and reflecting is false cognition; in the eighth consciousness, the wisdom that reflects upon the essence is true cognition. What does this mean? The Buddha-dharmas, numerous as the sands of the Ganges within the tathāgatagarbha, integrate to form the mental entity. This mind is pure by nature, yet stained by adventitious defilements so that it seems impure. Later, when false defilements cease, the pure aspect begins to become apparent; the newly apparent pure consciousness universally illuminates the dharmadhātu, which is spoken of as true cognition. Third, the division into greater and lesser: expedient contemplative understanding, which apprehends distinctions between this and that and cannot extinguish thought to universally illuminate all, is designated as lesser. Therefore Nāgārjuna says: "The contemplation of the eighteen kinds of emptiness is called minor wisdom." Prajñā that extinguishes contemplation cuts off its conceptual grasping and is able to universally illuminate the entire dharmadhātu; this is designated as greater. Therefore Nāgārjuna says: "Prajñāpāramitā is great wisdom."

Or it may be divided into three; the threefold division has many approaches: First, division according to contemplative entry: namely, [wisdom from] hearing, reflection, and cultivation. Second, division according to the object: namely, worldly truth cognition, ultimate truth cognition, and the cognition of the one true reality. Third, division according to meaning: namely, pure cognition, all-knowledge, and unhindered cognition; the meaning is as explained later. Fourth, division according to persons: first, all-knowledge, attained by the two vehicles; second, cognition of the paths and species, attained by bodhisattvas; third, all-species cognition, attained by the Tathāgata; also as explained later. Fifth, division according to consciousness: first, the distinguishing cognition in phenomenal consciousness; second, the distinguishing cognition in deluded consciousness; third, the distinguishing cognition in true consciousness.

Or it may be divided into four: namely, [wisdom from] hearing, reflection, cultivation, and realization.

Or it may be divided into five: first, hearing; second, reflection; third, cultivation; fourth, retribution-born consciousness cognition: the retribution-untainted mind of transformed holy beings, who perceive dharmas as soon as they are born, is named retribution-born cognition. These four are false. Fifth, realization cognition, which refers to the non-conceptual wisdom in true consciousness.

Or it may be divided into eleven: namely, the ten cognitions and real cognition. This meaning will be fully and broadly distinguished below under the eleven cognitions. Broadly speaking, they are immeasurable.

Question: What is the nature of the essence of this contemplative prajñā? Answer: As Nāgārjuna distinguishes, what people say differs, having six positions in all. The first school says: Only untainted wisdom is the essence of prajñā. Why is this so? As in the Hīnayāna, the Buddha only severed defilements beneath the Bodhi tree; all the wisdom cultivated prior to this is named prajñā, so we know it is tainted. The second school says: Untainted noble wisdom is the essence of prajñā, while the tainted is not, because the mind that sees the principle is named prajñā. According to this explanation, in the Hīnayāna teachings, the untainted expedients cultivated by the Buddha in his final body are prajñā, while everything prior is not. The third school says: From the first arousal of the mind up to sitting beneath the Bodhi tree, all wisdom cultivated—without asking whether it is tainted or untainted—is prajñā; upon reaching Buddhahood, it changes its name to sarvajña-cognition. According to this explanation, prajñā is in the cause and does not extend to the fruit. The fourth school says: All wisdom cultivated by a bodhisattva is universally called tainted and universally called untainted, and is entirely prajñā. The treatise itself explains: "Because of contemplating nirvāṇa and practicing the Buddha-path, it is universally called untainted. Because the fetters have not yet been completely severed, it is universally called tainted." The fifth school says: In the wisdom of a bodhisattva, the untainted, unconditioned, invisible, unapposed, constant cognition is the essence of prajñā; impermanent conditional cognition is entirely not so. The sixth school says: The essence of prajñā cannot be grasped: it is neither existent nor non-existent, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither empty nor real, neither the skandhas, dhātus, nor āyatanas, neither existent nor non-existent, without arising and without cessation, without grasping and without abandonment. It is just like a blazing flame that cannot be touched by tasting; if touched, it burns a person. Prajñā is like this: it cannot be grasped or clung to; whatever is grasped is entirely shattered and dispelled. Everything grasped previously is entirely not so.

Question: What is the difference between this approach and the fifth above? Answer: The fifth approach above takes the true cognition cultivated and born from conditioning expedients as the essence of prajñā. This [sixth] speaks of the beginningless true mind of Buddha-nature: when cultivated and revealed through conditions, it is realized; looking throughout, fundamentally outside its essence there are ultimately no conditions. Since conditions do not exist, the true also loses its opposition; this absolute true mind is spoken of as the primary essence of a bodhisattva's prajñā, and all the rest are not.

Question: Among these six, which is correct? Answer: The treatise has two judgments. One says they are all correct. Just as when various bhikṣus each spoke of the meaning of this, that, and the middle, the Buddha said they were all correct; this is also like that. The other says that what the sixth explains is correct, and the previous five are not the primary essence of prajñā, and so are declared incorrect. Contemplation is thus.

As for "true-mark": it is the realm known by the contemplation mentioned above. The fact that the essence of dharmas is real is named "true"; the forms and characteristics of this real are designated as "mark". What is this? Expansion and contraction are not fixed. In general, it is a single reality. Or it may be divided into two, as the Bodhisattvabhūmi explains: first, phenomenal dharmatā, the reality of worldly truth; second, real dharmatā, the reality of ultimate truth. Or it may be divided into three, as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains: first, worldly truth; second, ultimate truth; third, the one true truth. Or it may be divided into four: first, phenomenal reality: the skandhas, dhātus, āyatanas, and so forth; second, dharmic reality: suffering, impermanence, and so forth; third, principled reality: the meaning of emptiness and selflessness; fourth, nature reality: the true dharma of Buddha-nature. Furthermore, the four real principles explained in the Bodhisattvabhūmi are also the four realities: first, what is known by the world; second, what is known by learning; third, dharmas that are the domain of the purification of the defilement-hindrance; fourth, dharmas that are the domain of the purification of the knowledge-hindrance; as broadly distinguished above. Among these dharmas, generally speaking, they are all the true-mark; distinguishing specifically within them, only the ultimate truth is named the true-mark. This true-mark is in essence not prajñā, but because it can give rise to prajñā, it is named prajñā. Just as form, smell, and so forth are in essence not desire, but can give rise to a desiring mind, they are spoken of as the five desires.

Question: Noble cognition not only knows the real, but also knows the illusory and false. Why is what is known only named "true-mark"? Answer: Holy beings know in accordance with dharmas; whether knowing the real or knowing the false, it always accords with the preceding dharma, and so it is universally named "real". Furthermore, when knowing the real, one penetrates that fundamentally there is no falsity, and so it is spoken of solely as "real".

Question: Contemplation is itself prajñā, and these three kinds are all named prajñā; why may they not all be universally named contemplation? Answer: They may indeed. However, in that treatise, in order to distinguish prajñā, it differentiates text, contemplation, and true-mark; therefore, only one is specifically named contemplation. If one were again to distinguish its meaning from within that approach of contemplation, one could also speak of three kinds of contemplation: first, textual contemplation; second, prajñā contemplation; third, true-mark contemplation. Since the meanings are completely equal, one should not take them exclusively. The distinguishing of the three kinds of prajñā is briefly thus.