大乘玄論 4.5

4.5

釋名第二。復有二門：一釋權實、二解大義。通而言之，二智皆如實而照，並名為實；皆有善巧，悉稱方便。就別言之，即波若名實，漚和稱方便。略有八義：一者波若照實相境，從所照為名，故稱為實。二者波若從實相生，從能生受名，故稱為實。三者如實而照故，當體名實。論云「波若波羅蜜，實法不顛倒。」體離虛妄，非顛倒慧，故名為實。四者對凡夫顛倒不實之慧故，嘆波若為實。五者對二乘未實謂實故，明波若為實。六者對方便之用，以波若為體，故名實。七者對虛明實未是好實，非虛非實乃名妙實。八者虛實為二，非虛實為不二，二與不二皆名不實，非二不二乃名為實。是故論云「念想觀已除言語，法亦滅也。」方便者，是善巧之名。此義多門，今略論十對。一者直照空有名為波若；行空不證、涉有無著故名方便。此之照巧更無二體，雖巧而照，故名為實；雖照而巧，故名方便。問：照空有並名實者，空有二境應俱得稱真。答：能照之智皆名實智，所照之境同稱實境。實智之中有空智有智，實境之中有真境俗境，此為別也。問：既有真俗，云何皆名實境？答：是如實智境，故名實境，從智受名。又實是真俗，非妄稱之，當體名實。二者照空為實，涉有為方便。如《釋論》云「波若將入畢竟空，方便將出畢竟空。」以空是實相故名為實，波若照空故名為實。雖復照空，即能涉有，此用既巧，名為方便。問：若爾，雖復照有即能鑒空，此用亦巧，應是方便。答：此照雖巧，但實智為體，故隱其巧名與其實稱也。三者以內靜鑒為實，外反動為權。問：此義與前何異？答：此明若照若巧靜鑒之義皆名為實，以外反動故名為權。四者波若為實，五度為方便。所以然者，波若為空解，空解故名實；五度為有行，有行故名權。問：此與上照空為實、涉有為權何異？答：前照空照有皆是智慧，故以二解分權實。今約解行以開二門，空解為實、有行為權，與上異也。問：有行何故為權？答：雖復照空即能起行，此義既巧故為權。又空是實相、有非實相，故空解為實、有行為權。五者照空為實，知空亦空即能不證空故名為權。所以然者，二乘不知空，亦復以空為妙極，故名空但空，所以證空。菩薩知空亦空名不可得空，故不證空，即能涉有，故名為權。此明直知空義為實，實義即劣；知空亦空即能涉有，此用既勝，故名為權。然此二慧更無兩體，初觀心未妙，故但能照空。既轉精巧，即知空亦空。既知空亦空，而不壞假名，即能涉有。始終論之，猶是一慧，約巧未巧故分權實。六者知苦無常故名為實，而不取滅名為方便。以生死身實是苦空無常過患之法，如實照之故為實。二乘知此，即欲滅之，故無方便。菩薩雖知，而安身處疾，自行化人，故名方便。七者直知身病非故非新故名為實，而不厭離稱為方便。此但就有門分權實。八者淨名託跡毘耶不疾之身為實，現疾之迹為權。此據虛實之義以明權實也。九者以上照空有二為方便，照非空有不二為實。非空非有即是一實諦，照一實諦故名為實；雖非空非有，而空有宛然，不動不二善巧能二，故名方便。十者空有為二，非空有為不二，照二與不二皆名方便，照非二非不二名實。淨名杜言、釋迦掩室乃名為實。權實多門，略開此之十對，即一途次第，並有經論，可隨文用之。論大義。問：何故波若名摩訶，漚和不名摩訶？答：通皆得稱大。如上云「漚和俱舍羅，大師方便力」也。別而言之，波若稱大，略明十義：一者實相曠而無邊、深而無底，無有一法出法性外。波若照於實相，故名大慧；漚和雖巧，不照實相，故不名大。問：二乘亦照實相，何不名大？答：二乘未盡其邊，菩薩照窮原底，故名為大。二者三乘實智皆從波若中生。所以然者，所照實相既一，即能照波若無二。但根性不堪，故於一波若開為三乘智慧。三乘智慧攝入波若觀中，故名為大。問：云何於波若出生三乘慧？答：由實相故生波若，由波若故有菩薩，由菩薩故有佛，由佛故有三乘。即波若為本故，出生三乘，所以名大。問：三乘同觀實相，乃以實相為本，云何以波若為本？答：要由諸佛菩薩體悟波若，然後說三乘教，始得同觀實相，故波若為本。問：波若本出生三乘，應是三乘通教。答：《勝鬘》攝受正法出生五乘，猶如大地出四寶藏。《涅槃》云「即是聲聞藏出生聲聞，即因緣藏出生緣覺，即大乘藏出生菩薩。」可是三乘通教耶？又如《法花》明，長者宅內非但具七珍，亦有瓫器等物，而名長者大宅，不名通宅。波若亦爾，雖具有三乘之慧，而名菩薩法，不名三乘通教。問：若非三乘通教，何故勸三乘同觀？答：勸三乘人同觀實相波若，不勸三乘人同學摩訶波若。問：摩訶波若何故非三乘通學？答：論云「波若不屬二乘。」所以然者，既稱摩訶般若，即是大乘，簡非二乘，故知波若獨菩薩法。又此波若名波羅蜜，波羅蜜者，到佛道彼岸。二乘不到佛道彼岸，非波羅蜜故；摩訶波若波羅蜜，獨菩薩法不屬二乘。問：經但云「欲得聲聞等當學波若。」云何乃言當學實相波若？答：《釋論》作此判之，尋文自當見也。又以理推之，必非二乘人學勸摩訶波若，摩訶波若既是菩薩觀智，豈令二乘學耶？如《涅槃》云「下智觀故得聲聞菩提，上智觀故得菩薩菩提。」此乃明三乘同觀中道，豈令下智學上智耶？問：摩訶波若乃是獨菩薩法，而波若教中說三乘人同觀實相即是三乘通教。答：若爾，《涅槃經》中說三乘人同觀中道，應是三乘通教耶？問：若非三乘通教，何故令二乘人說耶？答：長者付財凡有二意：一欲顯教菩薩、二密教二乘。此乃欲息於三乘，同成菩薩，云何乃言三乘通教耶？三者由實相生波若，實相既無所依，則波若亦無著。以波若無著能道成眾行，亦無所著故不住三界，不中息二乘直趣佛道，以有引導之能，故名為大。問：五度本非度，波若引導故名為度。亦應五度本非眼，波若引導故得有眼。答：通義亦類，別即不齊。如五盲雖隨有眼趣道入城而得度名，而盲體性終自無眼。五度雖隨波若趣八正路至佛道城，而五度體性終非波若，故開福慧二嚴意顯於斯。問：《金剛波若》云「菩薩不住相布施，如日光明照，見種種色。」何得波若導五度不成眼耶？答：本以般若為眼，五度非眼。但波若導之令成無所得，不住三界、不墮二乘，趣佛道故名為眼，非是成波若之眼也。問：若眾行中以無所得為眼，亦應以無所得為慧。云何得開福慧二嚴？答：無所得即通、福慧即別。若以無所得為慧，亦有此義，但非波若之慧。所以然者，波若有無所得，復有鑒照；五度但有無所得，無有鑒照，故不名慧也。四者五十二種大賢聖位在波若觀中，故名為大。所以然者，今即唯一波若，但明昧不同，故開成五十二位。五者三大阿僧祇劫修此大慧，故名為大。六者能斷大惑，所謂無明，是故經云「無明住地其力最大。」二乘雖傾四住，未能斷之；菩薩照窮實相，方除此大惑，故名為大。七者拔三界內外一切大苦，故名為大。八者諸大菩薩之所行法，故名為大。九者於眾行中最勝無過，故名為大。十者信之而得大福、毀之而招大罪，故名為大。此之十義，自有偏約波若、自有具通二慧，可隨義配之。問：波若待小名大？不待小名大？答：具有二義。一者待二乘小慧故名為大。問：二乘為小慧、菩薩為大慧，二乘小波若、菩薩大般若，何故言波若不屬二乘？二乘心中名道品耶？答：講者不體其旨，憙滯此言。論云「波若不屬二乘」，此是摩訶波若菩薩大慧，故不屬二乘，非二乘之人無有空慧也。不得小名大者，波若體性是大，故言不待。不如二乘智慧，形凡則大、望菩薩即小。問：菩薩形二乘即大、望佛即波若為小，故在佛心中變名薩波若，寧言體性大耶？答：波若是因中之極，功在十地，故名為大，不望佛也。又波若通因果，果地波若即最上無過，故體性為大。如什公云「薩波若即為老波若」也。又言絕待大者，得小名大，雖復絕小，猶未絕大，為名言所及，故非好大；大小雙絕，方是好大。問：何文證之？答：題云摩訶波若，波若深重而智慧不稱，亦摩訶深重大不能稱，即其證也。又〈照明品〉云「不作大小名為摩訶」，復是良證。問：雙絕大小，今非大非小歎美為大，還復待小，何名絕待？答：此大絕小絕大，故名絕待。問：絕大絕小名之為大，即待大待小皆名為小，還是大小相待，何有絕待大耶？答：望前即絕，觀後便待，義不相違。問：波若之大與涅槃大何異？答：通而為言，即無有異。是故論云「若如法觀佛、波若及涅槃，是三即一相。涅槃之照即是波若，波若滅之則是涅槃。涅槃無累不盡名解脫，無境不照名波若，真極可軌稱法身。故具於三德，名為涅槃。」波若即是涅槃，故亦具三德。波若但是智慧，既名為別，涅槃亦但是果，果亦別也。問：波若是涅槃三德中一德，亦應涅槃是波若三德中一德耶？答：亦得為例。以波若之別即成涅槃，亦取涅槃之別成波若。波若之別即是智慧，涅槃之別名為滅度。故果德涅槃、佛地波若，皆具總別也。問：經說三德成涅槃，何故不言三德成波若？答：隨舉一德皆攝，何故無耶？但教起各自有由，涅槃教所興，正為斥小乘灰斷不具三德，嘆大涅槃具於三；波若教起，正明因行，斥二乘無二慧，辨菩薩具權實也。問：涅槃何故據果？波若何故約因？答：涅槃名滅度，滅度者大患永滅、超度四流，此名必是究竟，故就果門。波若名為慧，慧猶未決了，宜約因也。

Second, explaining the names. There are again two sections: first, explaining the expedient and the real; second, elucidating the meaning of 'great'.

Speaking generally, both kinds of gnosis illuminate in accord with reality, and so both are called 'real'; both possess skillfulness, and so both are designated 'expedient'.

Speaking specifically, *prajñā* is called real, and *upāya* is designated expedient. In brief, there are eight meanings:
1. *Prajñā* illuminates the cognitive object of the true nature of phenomena (*dharmatā* / real mark); taking its name from what it illuminates, it is therefore called 'real'.
2. *Prajñā* arises from the true nature of phenomena; receiving its name from what produces it, it is therefore called 'real'.
3. Because it illuminates in accord with reality, its intrinsic essence is called 'real'. As the treatise says: '*Prajñāpāramitā* is a real dharma that is not inverted.' Its essence is free from falsehood and is non-inverted wisdom; hence it is called 'real'.
4. In contrast to the inverted and unreal wisdom of ordinary worldlings, *prajñā* is praised as 'real'.
5. In contrast to the two vehicles who deem what is not yet real to be real, *prajñā* is clarified as 'real'.
6. In contrast to the function of expedient means, *prajñā* constitutes the essence; hence it is called 'real'.
7. To clarify the real in contrast to the false is not yet fine reality; neither false nor real is truly termed marvelous reality.
8. False and real constitute duality; neither false nor real constitutes non-duality. Both duality and non-duality are termed unreal; neither duality nor non-duality is truly called 'real'. Therefore, the treatise says: 'When thinking, conceptualizing, and observing have been eliminated, the dharmas of verbal expression also cease.'

'Expedient' (*upāya*) is the name for skillfulness. This meaning has many aspects; here ten pairs are briefly discussed:
1. Directly illuminating emptiness and existence is called *prajñā*; practicing emptiness without actualizing [extinction], and engaging existence without attachment, is called expedient means. This illumination and skillfulness have no two distinct essences: although skillful, it illuminates, and is therefore called real; although illuminating, it is skillful, and is therefore called expedient.
*Question:* If illuminating both emptiness and existence is called real, should not both cognitive objects—emptiness and existence—be entitled to be called ultimate?
*Answer:* The gnoses capable of illuminating are all called real gnosis; the cognitive objects illuminated are likewise called real objects. Within real gnosis, there is gnosis of emptiness and gnosis of existence; within real cognitive objects, there is the ultimate object and the conventional object—this constitutes the distinction.
*Question:* Since there are ultimate and conventional, why are they all called real cognitive objects?
*Answer:* Because they are the cognitive objects of reality-accordant gnosis, they are called real cognitive objects, receiving their name from gnosis. Furthermore, reality is both ultimate and conventional, not falsely so named; by their very essence they are called real.
2. Illuminating emptiness is the real; engaging existence is the expedient. As the *Explanatory Treatise* (*Dazhidulun*) says: '*Prajñā* leads one into ultimate emptiness; expedient means leads one out of ultimate emptiness.' Because emptiness is the true nature of phenomena, it is called real; because *prajñā* illuminates emptiness, it is called real. Although it illuminates emptiness, it can immediately engage existence; since this function is skillful, it is called expedient means.
*Question:* If so, then although it illuminates existence it can immediately perceive emptiness; this function is also skillful, so should it not be expedient means?
*Answer:* Although this illumination is skillful, it takes real gnosis as its essence; therefore its name of 'skillful' is concealed and it is given the designation of 'real'.
3. Inner quiet illumination is the real; outward responsive movement is the expedient.
*Question:* How does this meaning differ from the preceding one?
*Answer:* This clarifies that whether illumination or skillfulness, the meaning of quiet illumination is in all cases called real; because outward responsive movement turns outwards, it is called expedient.
4. *Prajñā* is the real; the five perfections are the expedient. Why is this? *Prajñā* is the understanding of emptiness, and because it is the understanding of emptiness it is called real; the five perfections are the practice of existence, and because they are the practice of existence they are called expedient.
*Question:* How does this differ from the above 'illuminating emptiness is the real, engaging existence is the expedient'?
*Answer:* Previously, illuminating emptiness and illuminating existence were both wisdom; thus expedient and real were distinguished through two types of understanding. Now, the two gates are distinguished according to understanding and practice: understanding of emptiness is the real, and practice of existence is the expedient. This differs from the above.
*Question:* Why is the practice of existence the expedient?
*Answer:* Although it illuminates emptiness, it can immediately initiate practice; since this principle is skillful, it is expedient. Furthermore, emptiness is the true nature of phenomena, while existence is not the true nature of phenomena; therefore understanding of emptiness is real, and practice of existence is expedient.
5. Illuminating emptiness is the real; knowing that emptiness is also empty so that one does not actualize emptiness is called the expedient. Why is this? The two vehicles do not know that emptiness is also empty, and further regard emptiness as the marvelous ultimate; thus it is called 'emptiness that is merely empty', which is why they actualize emptiness. The bodhisattva knows that emptiness is also empty, which is called 'unobtainable emptiness'; hence he does not actualize emptiness and can immediately engage existence, and so it is called expedient. This clarifies that directly knowing the meaning of emptiness is the real, and this real meaning is inferior; knowing that emptiness is also empty enables one to engage existence, and since this function is superior, it is called expedient. However, these two wisdoms have no two separate essences: at first, when the contemplative mind is not yet marvelous, it can only illuminate emptiness; when it becomes ever more refined and skillful, it knows that emptiness is also empty; having known that emptiness is also empty without destroying conventional designations, it can immediately engage existence. Discussed from beginning to end, it is still a single wisdom; expedient and real are differentiated according to whether it is skillful or not yet skillful.
6. Knowing suffering and impermanence is called the real; not seizing upon extinction is called the expedient. Because the body of birth-and-death is truly a dharma of suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and faults, illuminating it in accord with reality is the real. When the two vehicles know this, they immediately wish to extinguish it; hence they lack expedient means. Although the bodhisattva knows this, he maintains his body and dwells amidst illness, practicing for himself and transforming others; hence it is called expedient.
7. Directly knowing that bodily illness is neither old nor new is called the real; not being averse to it or renouncing it is called the expedient. This distinguishes expedient and real solely with respect to the gate of existence.
8. Vimalakīrti leaving his trace in Vaiśālī: his non-ill body is the real, while his trace of manifesting illness is the expedient. This clarifies expedient and real based on the meaning of true and manifested.
9. Illuminating the duality of emptiness and existence as above is the expedient; illuminating non-duality, which is neither empty nor existent, is the real. Neither empty nor existent is precisely the one real truth; illuminating the one real truth is therefore called the real. Although it is neither empty nor existent, emptiness and existence remain distinct; without moving from non-duality, it skillfully operates duality, and hence it is called the expedient.
10. Emptiness and existence constitute duality; neither empty nor existent constitutes non-duality. Illuminating both duality and non-duality is called the expedient; illuminating neither duality nor non-duality is called the real. Vimalakīrti closing his mouth and Śākyamuni shutting his chamber are alone termed the real.
Expedient and real have many gates; here these ten pairs are briefly laid out. They constitute one sequence, and all have sūtras and treatises [as authority]; they may be applied according to the text.

Discussing the meaning of 'great' (*mahā*).
*Question:* Why is *prajñā* called *mahā*, while *upāya* is not called *mahā*?
*Answer:* In general, both can be termed great. As said above: '*Upāyakauśalya*, the great master's power of expedient means.'
Speaking specifically, *prajñā* is called great for ten brief reasons:
1. The true nature of phenomena is vast and boundless, deep and bottomless; not a single dharma lies outside the dharma-nature (*dharmatā*). *Prajñā* illuminates the true nature of phenomena, and is therefore called great wisdom; although *upāya* is skillful, it does not illuminate the true nature of phenomena, and is therefore not called great.
*Question:* The two vehicles also illuminate the true nature of phenomena; why are they not called great?
*Answer:* The two vehicles do not exhaust its limits; the bodhisattva illuminates and reaches its very source and bottom, and is therefore called great.
2. The real gnosis of the three vehicles is entirely born from within *prajñā*. Why is this? Since the true nature of phenomena illuminated is one, the illuminating *prajñā* is non-dual. However, because capacities and dispositions cannot bear it, within the one *prajñā* the wisdom of the three vehicles is differentiated. The wisdom of the three vehicles is subsumed within the contemplation of *prajñā*; hence it is called great.
*Question:* How does *prajñā* give birth to the wisdom of the three vehicles?
*Answer:* Due to the true nature of phenomena, *prajñā* is produced; due to *prajñā*, there are bodhisattvas; due to bodhisattvas, there are buddhas; due to buddhas, there are the three vehicles. That is, taking *prajñā* as the root, it gives birth to the three vehicles; hence it is called great.
*Question:* The three vehicles identically contemplate the true nature of phenomena, so they take the true nature of phenomena as root; how can they take *prajñā* as root?
*Answer:* It is essential that the buddhas and bodhisattvas personally realize *prajñā* and only then preach the teachings of the three vehicles, so that beings can first begin identically contemplating the true nature of phenomena; therefore *prajñā* is the root.
*Question:* If *prajñā* originally produces the three vehicles, it should be the common teaching of the three vehicles.
*Answer:* The *Śrīmālādevīsūtra* states that embracing the true Dharma produces the five vehicles, just as the great earth produces the four treasure troves. The *Nirvāṇasūtra* says: 'It is the śrāvaka treasury that produces śrāvakas, the pratyekabuddha treasury that produces pratyekabuddhas, and the Mahāyāna treasury that produces bodhisattvas.' Could these be the common teaching of the three vehicles? Furthermore, as the *Lotus Sūtra* explains, inside the elder's mansion there are not only the seven treasures, but also earthen pots and the like; yet it is named the elder's great mansion, not the 'common mansion'. *Prajñā* is also like this: although it contains the wisdom of the three vehicles, it is called the bodhisattva dharma, not the common teaching of the three vehicles.
*Question:* If it is not the common teaching of the three vehicles, why are the three vehicles exhorted to contemplate it together?
*Answer:* People of the three vehicles are exhorted to contemplate the *prajñā* of the true nature of phenomena together, but they are not exhorted to study *mahāprajñā* together.
*Question:* Why is *mahāprajñā* not commonly studied by the three vehicles?
*Answer:* The treatise says: '*Prajñā* does not belong to the two vehicles.' Why is this? Since it is called *mahāprajñā*, it is the Mahāyāna, distinguished from the two vehicles; thus we know that *prajñā* is exclusively the bodhisattva dharma. Furthermore, this *prajñā* is called *pāramitā*; *pāramitā* means reaching the other shore of the Buddha path. The two vehicles do not reach the other shore of the Buddha path and are not *pāramitā*; therefore *mahāprajñāpāramitā* is exclusively the bodhisattva dharma and does not belong to the two vehicles.
*Question:* The sūtra merely says: 'Those who wish to attain the state of śrāvaka and so on should study *prajñā*.' Why do you instead say they should study the *prajñā* of the true nature of phenomena?
*Answer:* The *Explanatory Treatise* (*Dazhidulun*) makes this determination; when you search the text, you will naturally see it. Moreover, inferring by principle, it is certainly not that people of the two vehicles are exhorted to study *mahāprajñā*. Since *mahāprajñā* is the bodhisattva's contemplative gnosis, how could the two vehicles be made to study it? As the *Nirvāṇasūtra* says: 'By contemplating with inferior wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; by contemplating with superior wisdom, one attains bodhisattva bodhi.' This clarifies that the three vehicles identically contemplate the Middle Way; how could it cause inferior wisdom to study superior wisdom?
*Question:* *Mahāprajñā* is exclusively the bodhisattva dharma, yet within the *prajñā* teaching it is said that people of the three vehicles identically contemplate the true nature of phenomena; this is precisely the common teaching of the three vehicles.
*Answer:* If so, when the *Nirvāṇasūtra* says that people of the three vehicles identically contemplate the Middle Way, should that also be the common teaching of the three vehicles?
*Question:* If it is not the common teaching of the three vehicles, why are people of the two vehicles caused to expound it?
*Answer:* When the elder entrusts the wealth, there are two intentions: first, to explicitly instruct the bodhisattvas; second, to secretly instruct the two vehicles. This is intended to bring rest to the three vehicles and unite them in becoming bodhisattvas; how could one call it the common teaching of the three vehicles?
3. *Prajñā* is born from the true nature of phenomena; since the true nature of phenomena has nothing on which it relies, *prajñā* is also without attachment. Because *prajñā* is unattached, it can guide and accomplish all practices, which are also without attachment; therefore it does not abide in the three realms, does not rest midway in the two vehicles, and proceeds straight toward the Buddha path. Having the capacity to guide, it is called great.
*Question:* The five perfections were originally not perfections (*pāramitā*), but because *prajñā* guides them, they are called perfections. Similarly, the five perfections were originally without eyes, but because *prajñā* guides them, they should come to have eyes.
*Answer:* In general terms they are analogous, but in specific terms they are not equivalent. Just as five blind persons, following someone with eyes, go along the road and enter the city, thereby attaining the name of having crossed over, yet the intrinsic nature of the blind is ultimately still without eyes; so too, although the five perfections follow *prajñā* along the Eightfold Noble Path to the city of the Buddha path, the intrinsic nature of the five perfections is ultimately not *prajñā*. Therefore, the distinction between the two adornments of merit and wisdom is revealed here.
*Question:* The *Diamond Prajñā* says: 'A bodhisattva who gives without abiding in characteristics is like the light of the sun shining, seeing various colors.' How can it be that *prajñā* guiding the five perfections does not constitute eyes?
*Answer:* Originally, *prajñā* constitutes the eyes, while the five perfections are not eyes. It is only that *prajñā* guides them to become non-attainment, so that they do not abide in the three realms, do not fall into the two vehicles, and proceed toward the Buddha path; for this reason they are called eyes, but it is not that they become the eyes of *prajñā*.
*Question:* If non-attainment serves as the eyes among all practices, non-attainment should also serve as wisdom. How then can the two adornments of merit and wisdom be distinguished?
*Answer:* Non-attainment is general; merit and wisdom are specific. If non-attainment is taken as wisdom, there is also this meaning, but it is not the wisdom of *prajñā*. Why? *Prajñā* possesses non-attainment and also possesses illumination; the five perfections only possess non-attainment and do not possess illumination, and therefore are not called wisdom.
4. The fifty-two stages of great worthy and noble ones are encompassed within the contemplation of *prajñā*; hence it is called great. Why is this? Now there is solely one *prajñā*, but because clarity and dimness differ, it is divided into fifty-two stages.
5. Cultivating this great wisdom for three great incalculable eons (*asaṃkhyeyakalpa*), it is therefore called great.
6. It can sever great delusion, namely fundamental ignorance (*avidyā*); therefore the sūtra says: 'The entrenchment of ignorance possesses the greatest power.' Although the two vehicles overturn the four entrenchments, they cannot sever it; only when the bodhisattva illuminates and exhausts the true nature of phenomena is this great delusion eliminated; hence it is called great.
7. Uprooting all great suffering inside and outside the three realms, it is therefore called great.
8. Being the dharma practiced by all great bodhisattvas, it is therefore called great.
9. Being the most supreme and unsurpassed among all practices, it is therefore called great.
10. Believing in it brings great merit, while slandering it incurs great guilt; therefore it is called great.
These ten meanings either pertain specifically to *prajñā* or apply generally to both wisdoms; they may be matched according to their sense.

*Question:* Is *prajñā* called great in dependence on what is small, or is it called great without depending on what is small?
*Answer:* It possesses both meanings. First, it is called great in dependence on the small wisdom of the two vehicles.
*Question:* The two vehicles have small wisdom and the bodhisattva has great wisdom; the two vehicles have small *prajñā* and the bodhisattva has great *prajñā*—why is it said that *prajñā* does not belong to the two vehicles, and that in the minds of the two vehicles it is named the factors of enlightenment (*bodhipakṣa-dharmas*)?
*Answer:* Lecturers do not understand this purport and are fond of clinging to these words. When the treatise says '*prajñā* does not belong to the two vehicles', this refers to *mahāprajñā*, the bodhisattva's great wisdom, which therefore does not belong to the two vehicles; it does not mean that people of the two vehicles lack wisdom of emptiness.
Regarding being called great without depending on the small: the intrinsic nature of *prajñā* is great; hence it is said to be non-dependent. It is unlike the wisdom of the two vehicles, which is great when compared to worldlings, but small when viewed against the bodhisattva.
*Question:* The bodhisattva is great when compared to the two vehicles, but when viewed against the Buddha, *prajñā* is small, which is why in the Buddha's mind it transforms its name to *sarvajñā*; how can you say its intrinsic nature is great?
*Answer:* *Prajñā* is the culmination in the causal stage, its efficacy residing in the ten stages (*bhūmi*); hence it is called great, not in comparison with the Buddha. Furthermore, *prajñā* spans cause and effect; the *prajñā* of the fruition stage is supreme and unsurpassed, so its intrinsic nature is great. As Master Kumārajīva said: '*Sarvajñā* is simply the elder *prajñā*.'
Furthermore, regarding the absolute (*mukta-sāpekṣa* / beyond opposition) great: attaining greatness in relation to the small, although transcending the small, does not yet transcend the great; because it falls within names and words, it is not fine greatness. Only when both great and small are mutually transcended is it fine greatness.
*Question:* What text proves this?
*Answer:* The title says *Mahāprajñā*; *prajñā* is so deep and momentous that 'wisdom' does not fully name it, and *mahā* is so deep and momentous that 'great' does not fully name it—this is its proof. Furthermore, the 'Illumination Chapter' says: 'Not making great or small is called *mahā*'; this is another fine proof.
*Question:* If both great and small are mutually transcended, and now praising what is neither great nor small as 'great' still depends on the small, how can it be called absolute?
*Answer:* This greatness transcends small and transcends great, and therefore is called absolute.
*Question:* Calling what transcends great and transcends small 'great' means that depending on great and depending on small are both called small; this is still the relativity of great and small—how can there be an absolute great?
*Answer:* Looking toward what precedes, it is absolute; looking toward what follows, it is relative; the principles do not contradict each other.

*Question:* How does the greatness of *prajñā* differ from the greatness of *nirvāṇa*?
*Answer:* Speaking generally, there is no difference. Therefore the treatise says: 'If one contemplates the Buddha, *prajñā*, and *nirvāṇa* in accord with the Dharma, these three are of a single characteristic. The illumination of *nirvāṇa* is precisely *prajñā*; the extinction of *prajñā* is precisely *nirvāṇa*. When no affliction remains unexhausted in *nirvāṇa*, it is called liberation; when no cognitive object is unilluminated, it is called *prajñā*; the ultimate reality that can serve as a model is called dharmakāya. Therefore possessing the three virtues, it is called *nirvāṇa*.' *Prajñā* is precisely *nirvāṇa*, and therefore also possesses the three virtues. *Prajñā* is merely wisdom, and since it is designated specific, *nirvāṇa* is also merely fruition, and fruition is likewise specific.
*Question:* *Prajñā* is one virtue among the three virtues of *nirvāṇa*; should *nirvāṇa* likewise be one virtue among the three virtues of *prajñā*?
*Answer:* It can also be treated as analogous. Because the specific nature of *prajñā* constitutes *nirvāṇa*, one also takes the specific nature of *nirvāṇa* to constitute *prajñā*. The specific nature of *prajñā* is wisdom; the specific nature of *nirvāṇa* is extinction and crossing over. Therefore the fruition-virtue of *nirvāṇa* and the *prajñā* of the Buddha stage both possess the general and the specific.
*Question:* Sūtras speak of the three virtues constituting *nirvāṇa*; why do they not speak of the three virtues constituting *prajñā*?
*Answer:* Whichever single virtue is raised, it subsumes [the others]; why should it be lacking? It is simply that the emergence of teachings each has its own occasion. The *nirvāṇa* teaching arose precisely to refute the Hinayana extinction into ash for lacking the three virtues, and to praise the Great Nirvāṇa as possessing all three; the *prajñā* teaching arose precisely to clarify causal practice, to refute the two vehicles for lacking the two wisdoms, and to distinguish the bodhisattva as possessing both expedient and real.
*Question:* Why does *nirvāṇa* pertain to fruition, while *prajñā* pertains to cause?
*Answer:* *Nirvāṇa* is called extinction and crossing over; extinction and crossing over means that great afflictions are eternally extinguished and one crosses beyond the four currents. This name is necessarily ultimate, and therefore pertains to the fruition gate. *Prajñā* is called wisdom; wisdom is not yet definitively settled, and is suitably treated with respect to cause.