[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) › [大乘玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853) › 4.4 # 大乘玄論 4.4 大乘玄論 4.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.4.4) 然昔在江南著《法花玄論》已略明二智，但此義既為眾聖觀心法身父母，必須精究，故重論之。此義若通，則方等眾經不待言而自顯。具存梵本，應云波若波羅蜜、漚和波羅蜜。故此經云「智度菩薩母，方便以為父。」智則波若，度謂波羅蜜也。但翻波若不同，或言智慧，如叡法師云「秦言智慧」；或翻為遠離，出《放光經》，則釋道安用；或翻明度，出《六度集經》；或翻清淨，亦出《大品》，叡法師用之。但波若具含智慧、明淨、遠離等義，譯經之人隨取其一以用翻之。波若以斷眾惑、遠離生死名相之法，故云遠離。明了無暗，故稱為明。體絕穢染，名為清淨。達照解知，名為智慧。雖有諸義，多用智慧。智慧單複又名不同，或單名為智，如《釋論》及此經稱為智度；或但名為慧，如《釋論》云「波若秦言慧」；或俱翻智慧，眾經多爾。今詳會此意，義各有由，通而言之則智為慧。指慧為智，雖廣略不同，體無異也。翻為慧者，凡有四義：一欲分十度不同、二開空有義異、三明因果差別、四就凡聖為異。十度者，第六名波若，此翻為慧；第十云闍那，此名為智。問：闍那為智，術闍翻為何物？答：此云明，猶是智見之義耳。空有義異者，照空為慧、鑒有為智，故此經云「知一相門起於慧業，知種種相門起於智業。」因果差別者，論云「因名波若，果反名薩婆若。」薩婆若名一切智，則知波若名之為慧。慧名既劣宜在因中，智則決了故居果地。又佛照空有皆盡，加以一切，菩薩未窮但名慧也，不得云因中名智、果名一切智，亦不得云因名智慧、果名一切智，但應言因名為慧、果名為智，則於因果優劣義彰。凡聖異者，如《涅槃經》云「波若者一切眾生，此名為慧。」慧義既通，則凡聖並有，如十大地中定慧之數。毘婆舍那目之為見，謂一切聖人明見理也。闍那為智，通達決了也。次翻為智，凡有三義：一者慧名既劣，智則為勝，今欲稱歎，波若名為智。二者欲顯其名語便，如云智度，若言慧度則言不便也。三者欲明智則是慧，名異體同，故隨舉其一。次合稱智慧亦具三義：一明波若具鑒空有，故名含智慧，慧則照空、智便鑒有。二顯波若通果及因，因中波若為慧、果地波若為智，故三德中有波若德。三者欲明六度義含於十，經中但明六度不明十者，以波若之名既含智慧，第十智度蘊在其中。問：既具三名，以何翻為正？答：慧為正翻，餘皆義立。所以知然，從多論也。此經云「慧與方便」，《釋論》云「波若道、方便道」，《涅槃》云「波若一切眾生」。闍那為智，則配諸菩薩，故智非波若。又第六名慧、第十為智，皆有彼此二名，故知以慧為正。又論云「波若不屬佛，亦不屬二乘，但屬菩薩。菩薩則道慧、道種慧，佛具一切智、一切種智。」又云「波若名諸法實相慧。」如是等諸文非一故，以慧為正翻矣。問：若以慧為正翻，何故經中多云智慧？答：經中多說六度故多云智慧，少說十度故少明慧也。又六度之名皆有複翻，如布施等不單名施，波若亦爾。雖復是慧，欲對上五亦存複名，故云智慧也。次辨無翻義。有人言：波若名含五義，不可正翻，宜以慧當其名。如《釋論》七十一卷云「波若定實相甚深極重，智慧輕薄故，不能稱於般若。」此招提用之，今謂不然。《釋論》乃明不可稱義，非不可翻也。問：稱與翻何異？答：稱則天竺已明，翻則來於震旦，反彼為此，前後不同，義門各異。又論云「波若定實相故不可稱」，不言多含故不可稱，故此釋為謬矣。復有人言：波若不可稱者，此明觀照智慧不能稱實相波若，實相波若性常住，觀照智慧會境始生，故實相為深重，觀照智為輕薄。北人釋也。是亦不然。經以五歎歎於波若，不歎實相，云何言實相深重耶？又言「波若定實相」，則實相為所定，波若為能定。若言實相為深重者，可以實相還定實相耶？復有人言：智慧輕薄不能稱波若者，此是世間智慧、二乘智慧，不能稱量菩薩大智慧耳。何者？大智慧照實相理、道成眾行，餘淺智慧豈能稱耶？此南方人釋也。今謂不然。經云「智慧不能稱於般若」，不言淺慧不能稱深慧。又淺深俱名為慧，則俱是輕薄，並不能稱波若也。今依論釋之，論云「波若定實相故深重，智慧不能稱也。」所言定者，定是契會之名。夫萬化非無宗，而宗之者無相；虛宗非無契，而契之者無心。故聖人以無心之妙慧，契彼無相之虛宗，即內外並冥、緣智俱寂。智慧是知照之名，豈能稱絕觀般若？問：波若云何能會實相？答：由實相生波若故，波若能契會實相也。問：依此釋者猶是淺智，不能稱深智。答：深則愚智皆絕，淺則猶有知照，非淺智不稱深智耶？問：定實相既是契會之名，與舊釋冥會義何異耶？答：語同而意異也。但釋冥會有二師：一云，則會是冥，以符合故冥，冥契不乖故會，無優劣也。此莊嚴龍光之義。二云，會是符合之名，冥是混一之義，則冥勝而會劣也。何者？因中凡有四義故未冥：一惑未盡、二體有生滅、三智未周圓、四體依方所，故但稱會。佛果離此四義，所以談冥。冥與無生為一，則境智不分，無應照之異，而無生不乖俗，冥亦不妨會。佛果舉體冥、舉體會，會故應照滿十方，冥故一切皆絕。今總問之：冥既與境混一者，智為成境？為不作境耶？若不作境，云何言一？若智作境者，境既無知，智亦無知；智既有知，則境亦應爾，以其一故。若言與法性同絕故言冥，會猶與法性異者，則於會冥之日，猶見境智為二，何得經云「菩薩與波若相應，不見應與不應、合與不合」耶？又具四義故方成冥者，波若教佛智猶有生滅，則不得稱冥。亦無等法性義，故無定實相之義也。問：云何名甚深極重？答：夫論可稱則不名極重，良由極重故故不可稱。論主欲釋經不可稱義，故云重也。問：但應言重，何故云甚深？答：為欲簡釋重義，非如重物之重，乃是甚深，故云重耳。問：但言甚重，何故復云極耶？答：三乘同契實相，但二乘猶如兔馬，未盡其原，所以不得般若之名，不名甚深極重。今欲簡異二乘，明菩薩照盡其原，得名波若，故云甚深極重。問：智慧何故云輕薄耶？答：波若體絕緣觀，智慧名主於觀；波若體絕智愚，智慧名主知照；波若體絕名字，智慧則猶涉名言。故對波若之重，明智慧之輕；對波若之深，辨智慧之淺，淺猶薄也。問：波若體絕智慧，何故立智慧名耶？答：不知何以目之，強名智慧。雖立智慧之名，實不稱波若之體。問：但應言波若體深重、波若名輕薄，智慧體深重、智慧名輕薄。云何乃言波若深重、智慧輕薄？答：今依梵本，則云波若體深重、波若名輕薄。但用此意，則應云智慧體深重、智慧名輕薄。恐此義難顯，故譯經之人借此方智慧，不能稱梵文波若也。問：不可稱與不可量何異？答：經有五歎，謂大事故起，不可稱事、不可量事、無等事、不可思議事起。既別有無量等事故起，則稱非量也。不可量，則取無有邊際；不可稱，明甚深唯至重。例如〈法稱品〉明舍利不能稱波若經卷，今智慧名義不能稱絕觀波若也。問：論云「波若多智慧少故不能稱。」云何為多少耶？答：前約重輕釋不可稱，今就多少明不可稱，謂少不能稱多。但解多少不同。有人言：實相則無法不在故多，智慧局之於心故少。今謂不然。前就定實相故明不可稱，今約所含義明不可稱。波若體非愚智，能愚能智；智慧唯主於智，故波若多、智慧少。又波若定實相，實相既通，波若亦通；智慧不爾，故云少也。問：已知波若翻不翻義。方便復云何？答：《常啼品》云「漚和俱舍羅，大師方便力。」漚和為方便，俱舍羅名為勝智。波若之巧名為漚和，其用既勝，名勝智也。《淨名》以方便為父，取其生成之能；《大品》以漚和為師，明有訓誨之德，善巧化物、不證二乘，皆大師之力也。 > Formerly, when in Jiangnan composing the Fahua xuanlun, I already briefly elucidated the two gnoses. However, since this doctrine constitutes the parents of the contemplative minds and the dharmakāya of the noble ones, it must be thoroughly investigated, and hence I discuss it again. If this principle is mastered, then the various Vaipulya sūtras will become self-evident without needing explanation. Preserved fully in the Sanskrit original, it should be called prajñāpāramitā and upāyapāramitā. Hence this sūtra states: "Gnosis-crossing is the mother of the bodhisattva, and skillful means is the father." Gnosis is prajñā, and crossing refers to pāramitā. But translations of prajñā differ: some say "wisdom" (zhihui), as Master Sengrui said, "In the language of Qin, it is called zhihui"; some translate it as "transcendence" (yuanli), which comes from the Fangguang jing and was used by Shi Dao'an; some translate it as "crossing over through clarity" (mingdu), which comes from the Liudu ji jing; some translate it as "purity" (qingjing), which also comes from the Dapin and was used by Master Sengrui. However, prajñā fully encompasses meanings such as wisdom, clarity and purity, and transcendence; the translators of the sūtras each adopted one according to their preference to render it. Because prajñā severs all delusions and transcends the phenomena of birth and death, names and characteristics, it is called "transcendence." Because it is distinct and without darkness, it is called "clarity." Because its substance is completely free from defilement, it is called "purity." Because it thoroughly penetrates, illuminates, understands, and knows, it is called "wisdom." Although it has various meanings, "wisdom" (zhihui) is most commonly used. As for "wisdom" (zhihui), its single and compound names also differ: sometimes it is named singly as "gnosis" (zhi), as the Commentary \[Da zhidu lun\] and this sūtra call it "gnosis-crossing" (zhidu); sometimes it is only named as "wisdom" (hui), as the Commentary says, "Prajñā in the language of Qin is called hui"; or both are combined and translated as zhihui, which is common in many sūtras. Now, carefully reconciling these meanings, each sense has its rationale. Speaking generally, gnosis is wisdom and wisdom is designated as gnosis; although broad and brief differ, their substance is not distinct. Regarding its translation as "wisdom" (hui), there are four senses in total: first, to distinguish the difference among the ten perfections; second, to reveal the difference between emptiness and existence; third, to clarify the distinction between cause and fruit; fourth, to distinguish between ordinary beings and the noble ones. As for the ten perfections, the sixth is named prajñā, translated here as "wisdom" (hui); the tenth is called jñāna, named here as "gnosis" (zhi). Question: If jñāna is gnosis, what is vidyā translated as? Answer: It is called "clarity" (ming) here, which still carries the meaning of cognitive vision. Regarding the difference between emptiness and existence: illuminating emptiness is wisdom (hui), and discerning existence is gnosis (zhi). Hence this sūtra states: "Knowing the gateway of the single characteristic gives rise to the activity of wisdom; knowing the gateway of manifold characteristics gives rise to the activity of gnosis." Regarding the distinction between cause and fruit: the Treatise says, "In the causal stage it is called prajñā; in reverse, in the fruit it is called sarvajñā." Sarvajñā is called omniscience (all-knowledge); thus we know that prajñā is called wisdom (hui). Since the name "wisdom" is inferior, it is fitting for the causal stage; "gnosis" (zhi) is decisive and complete, and thus occupies the fruit stage. Furthermore, the Buddha illuminates emptiness and existence exhaustively, to which "all" (sarva) is added; the bodhisattva has not yet exhausted them, so it is merely called wisdom (hui). One cannot say that in the causal stage it is called gnosis and in the fruit it is called all-gnosis; nor can one say that in the causal stage it is called wisdom (zhihui) and in the fruit it is called all-gnosis. One should simply say that in the causal stage it is called wisdom (hui) and in the fruit it is called gnosis (zhi); thus the superiority and inferiority between cause and fruit are made manifest. Regarding the distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones: as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "Prajñā belongs to all sentient beings; this is called wisdom (hui)." Since the meaning of wisdom (hui) is pervasive, both ordinary beings and noble ones possess it, like the mental factor of concentration and wisdom among the ten mahābhūmikas. Vipaśyanā designates "viewing," meaning that all noble beings clearly see the principle. Jñāna is gnosis, which is penetrating and decisive. Next, translating it as "gnosis" (zhi) has three senses: first, since the name "wisdom" (hui) is inferior and "gnosis" (zhi) is superior, now wanting to praise it, prajñā is named "gnosis." Second, to demonstrate that the term is more convenient in phrasing, as in saying "gnosis-crossing" (zhidu); if one were to say "wisdom-crossing" (huidu), the expression would be awkward. Third, to clarify that gnosis is precisely wisdom: their names differ but their substance is identical, so either may be used. Next, combining them to call it "wisdom" (zhihui) also has three senses: first, to clarify that prajñā fully discerns emptiness and existence, hence its name encompasses both zhi and hui: hui illuminates emptiness and zhi discerns existence. Second, to show that prajñā pervades both fruit and cause: prajñā in the causal stage is hui, and prajñā in the fruit stage is zhi; hence among the three virtues there is the virtue of prajñā. Third, to clarify that the meaning of the six perfections encompasses the ten: that the sūtras only explain six perfections and do not explain ten is because the name prajñā already encompasses both zhi and hui, and the tenth perfection of gnosis is contained within it. Question: Since it possesses all three names, which translation is the correct one? Answer: "Wisdom" (hui) is the correct translation, and the others are established by interpretation. How do we know this? We judge by the majority of texts. This sūtra speaks of "wisdom and skillful means" (hui yu fangbian); the Commentary speaks of the "path of prajñā and path of skillful means"; the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says "prajñā belongs to all sentient beings." Jñāna is gnosis, which is matched to bodhisattvas; thus gnosis is not prajñā. Furthermore, the sixth is named hui and the tenth is zhi, both having these distinct terms; therefore we know that hui is the correct translation. Moreover, the Treatise states: "Prajñā does not belong to the Buddha, nor to the two vehicles, but only to the bodhisattva. Bodhisattvas possess wisdom of the path (mārgajñatā) and wisdom of the aspects of the path; the Buddha possesses all-knowledge (sarvajñatā) and knowledge of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā)." It also states: "Prajñā is called the wisdom of the true characteristic of all dharmas." Because there are many such passages, hui is taken as the correct translation. Question: If hui is the correct translation, why do the sūtras mostly say zhihui? Answer: The sūtras mostly expound the six perfections, so they mostly say zhihui; they rarely expound the ten perfections, so they rarely speak of hui alone. Furthermore, the names of the six perfections all have compound translations: just as dāna is called bushi rather than merely shi, prajñā is likewise. Although it is hui, in order to pair with the preceding five it also maintains a compound name, hence it is called zhihui. Next, distinguishing the doctrine of non-translation. Someone said: Because the name prajñā encompasses five meanings, it cannot be properly translated, and it is fitting to represent its name with hui. As the Commentary, fascicle 71, says: "Prajñā fixes the true characteristic; it is profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty. Because wisdom (zhihui) is light and shallow, it cannot weigh against prajñā." This was adopted by Zhaoti \[Senglang\], but I now say this is incorrect. The Commentary actually clarifies the meaning of "cannot be weighed against" (bu ke cheng), not "cannot be translated" (bu ke fan). Question: What is the difference between weighing against (cheng) and translating (fan)? Answer: Weighing against was already explained in India; translating came to China. Converting the foreign into the native entails different contexts before and after, and the thematic scopes differ. Furthermore, the Treatise says, "Because prajñā fixes the true characteristic, it cannot be weighed against"; it does not say that because it encompasses many meanings it cannot be weighed against. Therefore, this explanation is erroneous. Another person said: That prajñā cannot be weighed against clarifies that contemplative wisdom cannot weigh against the prajñā of the true characteristic. The prajñā of the true characteristic is by nature eternally abiding; contemplative wisdom only arises upon meeting the cognitive object. Therefore, the true characteristic is profound and weighty, while contemplative gnosis is light and shallow. This is the explanation of northern scholars. This is also incorrect. The sūtra praises prajñā with five eulogies, not the true characteristic; how could one say the true characteristic is profound and weighty? Moreover, it says "prajñā fixes the true characteristic": the true characteristic is what is fixed, and prajñā is that which fixes. If one says the true characteristic is profound and weighty, could the true characteristic in turn fix the true characteristic? Another person said: That wisdom is light and shallow and cannot weigh against prajñā means that worldly wisdom and the wisdom of the two vehicles cannot measure the great wisdom of bodhisattvas. Why? Great wisdom illuminates the principle of the true characteristic, and the path accomplishes manifold practices; how could other shallow wisdoms measure it? This is the explanation of southern scholars. I now say this is incorrect. The sūtra says "wisdom cannot weigh against prajñā"; it does not say shallow wisdom cannot weigh against deep wisdom. Furthermore, if both shallow and deep are named wisdom, then both are light and shallow, and neither could weigh against prajñā. Now, explaining it according to the Treatise: the Treatise says, "Because prajñā fixes the true characteristic, it is profound and weighty, and wisdom cannot weigh against it." As for the word "fixes" (ding), "fixing" is a designation for convergence and union. The ten thousand transformations are not without a source, yet that which sources them is signless; the empty source is not without convergence, yet that which converges with it is mindless. Therefore, the sage uses marvelous wisdom without mind to converge with that empty source without signs; thus inner and outer are both obscured, and cognitive condition and gnosis are both tranquil. "Wisdom" is a name for knowing and illuminating; how could it weigh against prajñā which transcends contemplation? Question: How can prajñā converge with the true characteristic? Answer: Because the true characteristic generates prajñā, prajñā is able to converge and unite with the true characteristic. Question: According to this explanation, it is still shallow gnosis that cannot weigh against deep gnosis. Answer: The deep transcends both foolishness and gnosis, whereas the shallow still possesses knowing and illuminating; is this not shallow gnosis failing to weigh against deep gnosis? Question: Since fixing the true characteristic is a designation for convergence and union, how does it differ from the old explanation of dark union (minghui)? Answer: The words are the same, but the intent is different. But there are two masters who explain dark union: one says union is precisely dark union: because of correspondence it is dark, and because dark convergence does not diverge it is union, without superiority or inferiority. This is the doctrine of Zhuangyan \[Sengmin\] and Longguang \[Sengbiao\]. The second says that union is a designation of correspondence, while darkness is the meaning of blending into one; thus darkness is superior and union is inferior. Why? In the causal stage, there are four conditions, so it is not yet dark: first, delusions are not exhausted; second, its substance has arising and ceasing; third, gnosis is not yet complete and round; fourth, its substance relies on location. Hence it is merely called union. The buddha-fruit is free from these four conditions, which is why darkness is spoken of. Darkness is one with the unborn; thus cognitive object and gnosis are not divided, and there is no distinction between response and illumination. Yet the unborn does not contradict the conventional, and darkness does not obstruct union. The buddha-fruit in its entire substance is dark, and in its entire substance is united: because it is united, its response and illumination fill the ten directions; because it is dark, everything is completely cut off. Now I generally interrogate this: Since darkness is blended into one with the cognitive object, does gnosis become the cognitive object, or does it not become the cognitive object? If it does not become the cognitive object, how can one say they are one? If gnosis becomes the cognitive object, then since the cognitive object has no knowing, gnosis should also have no knowing; if gnosis has knowing, then the cognitive object should also be likewise, because they are one. If one says that because it is equally cut off along with the dharma-nature it is called dark, while union is still different from the dharma-nature, then on the day of union and darkness, one would still see cognitive object and gnosis as two; how then could the sūtra state, "The bodhisattva accords with prajñā, not seeing accordance or non-accordance, union or non-union"? Furthermore, if it only becomes dark by possessing the four conditions, then in the teaching of prajñā the buddha-gnosis would still have arising and ceasing, and could not be called dark. Nor would there be the meaning of equalling the dharma-nature, and hence no meaning of fixing the true characteristic. Question: What is meant by "profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty"? Answer: If something can be weighed, it is not called exceedingly weighty; precisely because it is exceedingly weighty, it cannot be weighed. The treatise author wished to explain the sūtra's meaning of "cannot be weighed," hence he said "weighty." Question: He should simply have said "weighty"; why say "profoundly deep"? Answer: To qualify and explain the meaning of weighty: it is not the weight of a heavy object, but rather profoundly deep, hence he simply said weighty. Question: Having said "exceedingly weighty," why add "most" (ji)? Answer: The three vehicles equally converge with the true characteristic, but the two vehicles are like the hare and the horse, not exhausting its source; therefore they do not obtain the name of prajñā, and are not called profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty. Now, wishing to distinguish them from the two vehicles and clarify that the bodhisattva illuminates its source exhaustively and obtains the name of prajñā, he says "profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty." Question: Why is wisdom said to be "light and shallow"? Answer: The substance of prajñā transcends conditions and contemplation, while the name "wisdom" pertains to contemplation; the substance of prajñā transcends gnosis and folly, while the name "wisdom" pertains to knowing and illuminating; the substance of prajñā transcends names and characters, while "wisdom" still touches upon names and words. Therefore, against the weight of prajñā, the lightness of wisdom is clarified; against the depth of prajñā, the shallowness of wisdom is distinguished—shallow is equivalent to thin. Question: Since the substance of prajñā transcends wisdom, why establish the name "wisdom"? Answer: Not knowing how to designate it, it is forcibly named wisdom. Although the name of wisdom is established, it does not truly weigh against the substance of prajñā. Question: One should simply say that the substance of prajñā is deep and weighty and the name of prajñā is light and shallow, and the substance of wisdom is deep and weighty and the name of wisdom is light and shallow. Why instead say that prajñā is deep and weighty, and wisdom is light and shallow? Answer: Now according to the Sanskrit text, it says the substance of prajñā is deep and weighty, and the name of prajñā is light and shallow. Applying this meaning, one should indeed say the substance of wisdom is deep and weighty and the name of wisdom is light and shallow. Fearing that this meaning would be difficult to show, the translator borrowed the local term "wisdom" (zhihui) as unable to weigh against the Sanskrit prajñā. Question: What is the difference between "cannot be weighed" (bu ke cheng) and "cannot be measured" (bu ke liang)? Answer: The sūtra has five eulogies, saying that it arises for great matters, for matters that cannot be weighed, for matters that cannot be measured, for unequalled matters, and for inconceivable matters. Since there are distinctly matters that are immeasurable and so forth for which it arises, weighing is not measuring. "Cannot be measured" adopts the sense of having no boundaries; "cannot be weighed" clarifies that being profoundly deep, it is supremely weighty. For example, the "Dharmadhvaja Chapter" clarifies that relics cannot weigh against the prajñā sūtra scrolls; now the name and meaning of wisdom cannot weigh against the prajñā that transcends contemplation. Question: The Treatise says, "Because prajñā is much and wisdom is little, it cannot be weighed against." What is meant by much and little? Answer: Previously, "cannot be weighed" was explained in terms of heavy and light; now, "cannot be weighed" is clarified in terms of much and little, meaning the little cannot weigh against the much. But explanations of much and little differ. Someone said: The true characteristic is present in all dharmas, hence it is much; wisdom is confined to the mind, hence it is little. I now say this is incorrect. Previously, "cannot be weighed" was clarified in terms of fixing the true characteristic; now, "cannot be weighed" is clarified in terms of its encompassed meaning. The substance of prajñā is neither folly nor gnosis, yet it can be folly and can be gnosis; wisdom only pertains to gnosis; therefore prajñā is much and wisdom is little. Furthermore, prajñā fixes the true characteristic: since the true characteristic is pervasive, prajñā is also pervasive; wisdom is not like this, hence it is called little. Question: The meanings of translating and not translating prajñā are now understood. What of skillful means? Answer: The "Sadāprarudita Chapter" says: "Upāyakausalya is the Great Master's power of skillful means." Upāya is skillful means; kausalya is named excellent gnosis. The skill of prajñā is named upāya; since its function is superior, it is named excellent gnosis. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa takes skillful means as the father, taking its capacity to generate and bring to fruition; the Dapin takes upāya as the master, clarifying its virtue of instruction and guidance: skillfully transforming living beings and not realizing \[the fruits of\] the two vehicles are all the power of the Great Master. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.4.3) - [Next: 4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.4.5) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853~en-mt.4.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大智度論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.pancavimsatisahasrika!mahaprajnaparamitopadesa*zh-kumarajiva.70.190) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.4.4) · Pramāṇa