大乘玄論 4.6

The third [section], Explaining the Paths. Question: The Treatise states: "A bodhisattva has two paths: first, the path of wisdom; second, the path of expedient means." What are these two paths? Answer: Some say that the path of wisdom is wisdom as true mark, and the path of expedient means is wisdom as expedient means. This is not so. In general classification, the two paths may be distinguished in three ways: First, following the Sanskrit completely, one should say the path of prajñā and the path of upāya. Second, opening both in Chinese, one should say the path of wisdom and the path of expedient means. Third, combining the two, as explained in the treatise: "wisdom" follows the Sanskrit term, while "expedient means" preserves the Chinese word. Now, if one speaks of "wisdom as true mark" and "wisdom as expedient means," both are termed "wisdom," so the two paths would not be differentiated. Moreover, wisdom as true mark is an object, and wisdom as expedient means is gnosis; how could object and gnosis be treated as the two paths? If one says that wisdom as true mark is real wisdom and wisdom as expedient means is expedient wisdom, taking these to be the two paths, this also is not so. The treatise says, "Prajñā and upāya are the two paths." How could both be called prajñā? If so, both paths should also be called expedient means. Furthermore, the establishment of the three wisdoms is discussed entirely within the path of wisdom: first, wisdom as true mark; second, wisdom as contemplation; third, wisdom as written letters. The true mark can produce wisdom; hence it is called wisdom. Written letters can express wisdom, taking their name from what is expressed; hence they are also called wisdom. Third, wisdom as contemplation, in its intrinsic reality, is called wisdom. Question: Why are only these three established, neither more nor less? Answer: There are three meanings: the true mark is the object capable of producing, contemplation is the gnosis produced, and written letters are the text capable of expressing. One must have these three, neither increased nor decreased. Again, combining these three produces three pairs: the true mark is the object, and contemplation is the gnosis—this is the pair of object and gnosis. Object and gnosis are what is expressed, and written letters are what can reveal them—this is the pair of what reveals and what is revealed. Object and gnosis pertain to one's own practice, while written letters exist for the sake of explaining to sentient beings—this is the pair of one's own practice and transforming others. Second, the true mark is unconditioned wisdom, and contemplation is conditioned wisdom. Why so? The treatise says: "The true mark of all phenomena is that mental activity and speech are severed, unborn and unceasing, quiescent like nirvāṇa." Since the true mark is devoid of arising and ceasing, it is unconditioned wisdom. The true mark can produce contemplative gnosis, and contemplative gnosis is newly arisen; hence it is called conditioned wisdom. In all things there are only these two; that which expresses this conditioned and unconditioned is called wisdom as written letters. Written letters take their name from what they express and encompass both conditioned and unconditioned; considered in their own intrinsic reality, they are subsumed under the conditioned. Third, the true mark is unconditioned wisdom, written letters are conditioned wisdom, and contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned. Since the bodhisattva's burdens are not yet exhausted, they have not yet escaped arising and ceasing; hence it is called conditioned. The Buddha has no affliction that is not purified, and has no further arising or ceasing; hence it is unconditioned wisdom. Question: Why is there arising and ceasing when there are afflictions? Answer: Because there are afflictions, one cannot comprehend that there is fundamentally no arising and ceasing; hence there is arising and ceasing. If there are no afflictions, one comprehends that the contemplative mind is fundamentally unborn, which is the unconditioned; this does not mean that by transforming conditioned wisdom it becomes unconditioned. These three approaches totally subsume object and gnosis, conditioned and unconditioned, principle and teaching, cause and fruit; therefore only three are established. Question: Can the true mark also be real wisdom, and contemplation be expedient means? Answer: If one takes buddha-nature to be the true mark, fundamentally possessed from the beginning, it is called real wisdom; contemplation, which newly arises through cultivation and practice, is called expedient means. This does not mean that illuminating the existent is expedient means and illuminating emptiness is real. Whether provisional or real, whatever has the meaning of newly arising is called expedient means, and the meaning of fundamentally possessing buddha-nature as awakening illumination is called real. The Daśabhūmika masters hold that wisdom through true cultivation is fundamentally possessed, whereas wisdom through conditioned cultivation newly arises through practice. The same applies to naturally pure nirvāṇa and expedient nirvāṇa; this is still the old theory of root and beginning. Question: How does this differ from the present view? Answer: The fundamental nature being pure is called "fundamentally possessed," and newly awakening to this fundamental purity in accordance with conditions is merely called "newly possessed." However, the correct path has never had root or beginning, nor is it defiled or pure. Furthermore, in the old traditions, conditioned and unconditioned are definitively two; we now clarify that before attaining bodhi, the unconditioned becomes the conditioned; when one attains bodhi, the conditioned becomes the unconditioned. How could there be an unconditioned separate from the conditioned? It is as explained earlier. The same applies to conditioned and unconditioned: all phenomena are called unconditioned because their fundamental nature is pure, and they are called conditioned because one has not yet awakened to fundamental non-arising and non-ceasing; yet wisdom has never been conditioned or unconditioned. Question: Since the path of wisdom is divided into three, does the path of expedient means also have three? Answer: Generally speaking, it also has them: namely, object, gnosis, and written letters. However, real wisdom takes its name from the object, so one must differentiate the object; expedient means receives its designation from skillfulness, so one need not differentiate the object; and written letters apply to both paths. Nevertheless, although expedient means does not take its name from the object, it actually illuminates the cognitive object of conventional truth, so it also possesses the three. Since contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned, expedient means is also like this. The Tathāgata's two gnoses are unconditioned, whereas the bodhisattva's two paths are still conditioned. Question: Is wisdom as true mark only the cognitive object? Or can it also be gnosis? Answer: Some say that wisdom as true mark is only the name of an object. Fascicle forty-three of the Treatise states: "Question: Previously you explained wisdom as prajñā; why do you now speak of emptiness as prajñā? Answer: The cause is spoken of within the fruit, as when one speaks of 'eating cloth.'" This meaning should be speaking of the fruit within the cause; yet it says "speaking of the cause within the fruit" because, investigating backwards to clarify the meaning, wisdom is properly prajñā. The true mark can produce wisdom, so wisdom is the fruit of the true mark; yet speaking of the true mark as prajñā in relation to wisdom is why it says "speaking of the cause within the fruit." Both North and South agree on this explanation. Some say that the Buddha has three kinds: first, the dharmakāya; second, the saṃbhogakāya; and third, the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. The true mark is the dharmakāya Buddha; because the true mark can serve as a model, it is called dharma. This dharma has an essence, so it is called a body. Yet the true mark is not the Buddha; because it can produce the Buddha, it is called Buddha. Second, the saṃbhogakāya Buddha: through practice, one accords with the principle of the true mark. Since the true mark is eternal, the saṃbhoga Buddha is also eternal; because the Dharma is eternal, all Buddhas are also eternal. Third, the transformed Buddha, which is the function of responding to beings. This is the explanation of the northern masters of the treatises. Some say: cultivating emptiness and signlessness, completely penetrating the principle, with mind, thought, and consciousness extinguished and afflictions purified—this unconditioned wisdom is precisely the true mark. If there are active cognitive objects and one has not yet escaped arising and ceasing, this constitutes the bodhisattva's six perfections, attaining the distinctions of the ten grounds, which is called conditioned wisdom.

This is the doctrine of Master Shang the meditation practitioner from the south. Furthermore, someone says: 'The true characteristic is the principle of ultimate truth. Because afflictions are exhausted upon tallying with this principle, it is free from arising and ceasing, identical with suchness, equal to the Dharma-nature, and unconditioned yet leaves nothing unconditioned; thus the true characteristic is the cognitive object.' This is also the doctrine of the Tattvasiddhi masters of the south. Now, discerning the intention of the Commentary (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*), five statements may be obtained: First, speaking of the result while in the cause, as when naming the true characteristic 'prajñā.' Second, speaking of the cause while in the result, as when speaking of prajñā as the 'true characteristic.' Third, speaking directly of the cause as cause: the true characteristic is not prajñā. Fourth, speaking directly of the result as result: prajñā is not the true characteristic. Fifth, neither cause nor result. Thus the treatise explains the true characteristic with the text: 'The cause is one extreme, and the result is another extreme; being free from these two extremes is called the Middle Way. The condition is one extreme, and contemplation is another extreme; being free from these two extremes is called the Middle Way.' Therefore we know that the true characteristic has never been cause or result, nor is it cognitive object or gnosis; yet conforming to conditions and pursuing meanings, there are the distinct four statements above. The various masters ought not to generally cite an isolated line to represent the complete purport. Question: In the old [doctrine], they spoke of 'real wisdom' and 'expedient wisdom', universally calling them both 'wisdom'; why can the two paths not both be named 'prajñā'? Answer: In foreign lands it is named *prajñā*, which in this region is translated as 'wisdom.' In the Sanskrit text it is named *upāya*, which in this land is called 'expedient means.' Those who translated the scriptures wished to establish the dialects of both regions, so they distinguished the two paths. If both were called *prajñā*, the two names would become confused with one another. Therefore Venerable Sengrui, recounting Kumārajīva's method of translating scriptures, stated: 'Therefore, where the sound was lost, it was corrected using India[n pronunciation]; where Qin words were erroneous, they were settled by character definitions; where it could not be altered, it was transcribed as it was.' Therefore we know that the two paths must not both be called *prajñā*. Question: If so, why could the old [masters] speak of 'real wisdom' and 'expedient wisdom'? Answer: They wished to clarify that both the real Dharma and expedient means possess the function of illumination and discernment, so they simply called both 'wisdom.' This is an interpretive explanation, not the naming of the two paths; in naming the two paths, one simply speaks of 'wisdom' and 'expedient means.' Question: Why is prajñā named 'wisdom', while expedient means is not named 'wisdom'? Answer: Broadly speaking, since prajñā attains the name 'wisdom' through illuminating, expedient means also illuminates and can also be called 'wisdom'; since expedient means is skillful, prajñā is also skillful. However, in establishing these two names, one wishes to keep them distinct, alternating between the concealed and the revealed: prajñā reveals its name of illumination and conceals its title of skillfulness, while expedient means reveals its title of skillfulness and conceals its name of illumination. Why is this so? Prajñā establishes its name from the cognitive object of the true characteristic and also corresponds to its essence; therefore, illumination is revealed and skillfulness is concealed. Expedient means does not establish its name from illuminating conventional cognitive objects, but merely takes up skillful function; therefore, skillfulness is revealed and illumination is submerged. Furthermore, 'wisdom' is named for illuminating emptiness; since prajñā is the wisdom of emptiness, it is named 'wisdom'; expedient means engages with existence, so it cannot be named 'wisdom.' Question: If prajñā illuminating emptiness is called 'wisdom', then expedient means engaging with existence should be called 'gnosis.' Answer: As explained before, it is not that expedient means does not illuminate existence, but precisely because it takes up skillful capacity, it is not called 'gnosis.' Question: How is it known that prajñā is the substance and expedient means is the function? Answer: The hundredth fascicle of the Commentary states: 'Question: Above, the entrustment was already completed; why is there another entrustment now? Answer: Above, the substance of prajñā was explained; now, the function of expedient means is explained.' Therefore, prajñā is the substance and expedient means is the function. The treatise also states: 'Prajñā and expedient means are fundamentally one in substance, yet they differ according to their meanings, just as gold is fashioned into various objects.' This clarifies that provisional and real share one substance, distinguished as two according to meaning: gold illustrates prajñā, prajñā being the substance; the skillfulness wrought upon gold illustrates expedient means, expedient means being the function. Question: Why is prajñā the substance? Why is expedient means the function? Answer: The true characteristic is the root; because prajñā illuminates the true characteristic, prajñā is also the root, and thus constitutes the substance. The various phenomena are the branches; because expedient means illuminates the various phenomena, expedient means is the function. Question: How is it known that the true characteristic is the root? Answer: The first fascicle of the treatise states: 'The three siddhāntas can be refuted, but the ultimate siddhānta cannot be refuted; it extinguishes all speech and transcends all conceptual proliferation.' The ultimate siddhānta is the true characteristic. The treatise also states: 'Apart from the true characteristic, all else is named Māra.' Therefore, the true characteristic is the root. Furthermore, because of delusion regarding the true characteristic there are the six destinies, and through awakening to the true characteristic there are the three vehicles; hence the true characteristic is the source of delusion and awakening, and is therefore called the root. This is named 'real' in contrast to the false and deceptive; if there were no false and deceptive, there would also be no real, as stated earlier: 'neither cognitive object nor gnosis, neither result nor cause.' It is not like the old schools, which held there to be an inherently existing cognitive object of the true characteristic. Question: If prajñā is the root, then prajñā is superior and expedient means is inferior. Why then is the sixth ground named prajñā, while the seventh ground is called expedient means? Answer: Although gold is the substance, when it has not yet been fashioned into skillful objects, the gold is inferior. When gold is worked into something skillful, then the skillfulness surpasses the gold. Although on the sixth ground one attains the substance of prajñā, one has not yet attained its wondrous function, so prajñā is inferior; upon reaching the seventh ground, prajñā functions wondrously, so expedient means is called superior. Therefore the treatise states: 'Prajñā, purified, turns into the name expedient means.' This word 'turns' means that the wisdom illuminating emptiness was not yet able to engage with existence; hence the wisdom of emptiness was not yet skillful and was merely named prajñā. When the wisdom illuminating emptiness can immediately engage with existence, it shifts to be named expedient means. Question: Since it turns into the name expedient means, it should lose the name prajñā, and thus there would not be two wisdoms. Why is this so? When one attains prajñā, there is not yet expedient means; when one attains expedient means, there is no longer prajñā. Answer: The two wisdoms are not distinct: the substance-skill of the wisdom of emptiness is named expedient prajñā, and the skillfulness of the wisdom of emptiness is called prajñā-expedient. It is like gold fashioned skillfully: the skillfulness does not lose the gold, while the [mere] gold does not yet have the skillfulness. Question: The wisdom of emptiness has two skills: first, illuminating emptiness without attachment; second, immediately being able to engage with existence without obstruction. Between these two skills, which one is expedient means? Answer: Prajñā broadly has four powers: first, illuminating the true characteristic; second, being without attachment; third, cutting off afflictions; fourth, being able to guide expedient means. These four functions are sequential. Because of not seeing any characteristics one sees the true characteristic; since the true characteristic has nothing to rely upon, prajñā also has no attachment; because of having no attachment, the manifold burdens are tranquil; and because there are no burdens, it can guide expedient means to engage with existence without defilement. If so, illuminating emptiness and having no attachment to emptiness is the power of prajñā, and is thus assigned to the wisdom of emptiness; immediately using the wisdom of emptiness to engage with existence is assigned to expedient means; thus the two skills are distinct. Question: When expedient means engages with existence, how many powers does it possess? Answer: First, it has the efficacy of illuminating cognitive objects; second, it has the power of not realizing emptiness; third, it has the function of initiating practices.

Question: Engaging with existence without attachment—is this the function of skillful means, or the power of prajñā? Answer: Engaging with existence belongs to the power of skillful means; non-attachment is due to the power of prajñā. Because prajñā is without attachment, within the contemplation of prajñā there is the function of clever skillful means; hence this skillful means is able to be without attachment. Question: How is skillful means able not to realize [the limit of] emptiness? Answer: Prajñā illuminates the true nature of all phenomena; skillful means can illuminate all phenomena of the true nature. Therefore, one does not sink into the contemplation of emptiness, which is called 'not realizing [the limit of emptiness]'. As the Treatise [Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra] states: 'Prajñā leads one into ultimate emptiness without any conceptual proliferation; skillful means leads one out of ultimate emptiness to adorn the lands and transform people.' This confirms the above meanings of the powers. 'Leading one into ultimate emptiness' is illuminating the true nature. 'Without any conceptual proliferation' refers to the function of non-attachment and severing delusions. 'Skillful means leads one out of ultimate emptiness' is being guided by prajñā, and is also the power of skillful means to arise in practice by illuminating objects without realizing [the limit of emptiness]. Question: Prajñā illuminates the true nature of all phenomena; how is skillful means able to illuminate all phenomena of the true nature? Answer: They are designated 'the true nature of all phenomena' and 'all phenomena of the true nature': all phenomena appear vividly while being the true nature; the true nature appears vividly while being all phenomena. All phenomena and the true nature are non-dual yet dual, dual yet constantly non-dual. Since the cognitive object is thus, the two wisdoms are also thus. Therefore, prajñā illuminates the true nature of all phenomena, while skillful means is able to illuminate all phenomena of the true nature. Question: Although it is the true nature, all phenomena appear vividly; when upāya illuminates this, it is called clever. Likewise, although they are all phenomena, the true nature appears vividly; when prajñā illuminates it, why is it not called clever? Answer: Comprehensively speaking, it is analogously so, as explained above by concealing and revealing. Furthermore, prajñā illuminates the true nature and is able not to be attached, which the two vehicles also share in; thus the meaning of cleverness is not prominent, and so it is not named skillful means. Being able to illuminate existence right within emptiness—since this function is wonderful, śrāvakas are entirely excluded and bodhisattvas uniquely possess it; hence it is given the name skillful means. Question: If illuminating existence right within emptiness is called wonderful, then illuminating emptiness right within existence is also wonderful. Answer: If one is able to illuminate emptiness right within existence, one is immediately able to illuminate existence right within emptiness. This is wisdom possessing the understanding of skillful means, and skillful means possessing the understanding of wisdom. Between these two wisdoms, there is neither superior nor inferior. However, in contrast to the two vehicles, which illuminate emptiness but cannot engage with existence, it is explained that giving rise to the function of existence right within emptiness is wonderful, and is called skillful means. Furthermore, in contrast to the sixth bhūmi, where one only attains the contemplation of emptiness of prajñā and is not yet able to engage with existence right within emptiness, it is now explained that engaging with existence right within emptiness is skillful means. Question: Being unattached to existence and not realizing emptiness are both skillful; why is the skill of non-attachment named prajñā, with prajñā being inferior at the sixth bhūmi, while the skill of non-realization is named skillful means, with skillful means being superior at the seventh bhūmi? Answer: It has been explained above. Furthermore, existence is conventional truth, and leaving existence is easy; thus the skill of prajñā is inferior. Emptiness is ultimate truth, and escaping nothingness is difficult; thus skillful means is superior. Furthermore, entering the contemplation of the true nature without being attached to existence escapes the stage of ordinary beings; illuminating all phenomena right within the contemplation of the true nature without stagnating in emptiness departs from the stage of the two vehicles. Escaping ordinary beings is easy, so prajñā is inferior; surpassing the noble ones is difficult, so skillful means is superior. This is why there is the meaning of superiority and inferiority between the sixth and seventh [stages]. Question: If so, and the two wisdoms are not yet equal at the sixth bhūmi, how could it be said above that they are already parallel from the first bhūmi? Answer: Looking from the first bhūmi toward the pre-bhūmi stages, they are already parallel; comparing it to the seventh bhūmi, they are not yet parallel. The reason for this is that from the first bhūmi onward, one attains the unborn, and movement and stillness are unobstructed; however, the aspect of stillness is somewhat stronger, and active functioning is slightly weak, so it is said they are not yet parallel. When reaching the seventh bhūmi, movement and stillness are unobstructed and both wisdoms journey together, so they are called parallel. Question: How is this known? Answer: If from the sixth bhūmi downward they were not parallel—entering emptiness without seeing existence, and emerging into existence without seeing emptiness—the two vehicles would be the same; how would [the bodhisattva] differ from them? Thus we know that from the first bhūmi onward they are already able to be parallel, but with a slight imbalance of strong and weak, it is said they are not yet balanced. Question: What is the difference between non-attachment to emptiness and not realizing emptiness? Answer: When the two vehicles enter emptiness, they do not retain the catuṣkoṭi; this is merely non-attachment, but they cannot avoid realizing it. When a bodhisattva enters emptiness, not only is there nothing to retain, but he can also immediately engage with existence; hence it is called not realizing. Question: When the two vehicles and bodhisattvas enter emptiness, they equally have nothing to rely upon; why do śrāvakas abide in emptiness while bodhisattvas do not realize it? Answer: The two vehicles take emptiness as the ultimate wonder and rely upon this non-reliance; therefore they abide in emptiness. Bodhisattvas do not take emptiness as the ultimate wonder; knowing that emptiness is also empty, which is called unattainable emptiness, they do not rely upon this non-reliance, and thus are able not to realize it. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: 'Practicing is not grasped, not practicing is also not grasped; practicing and not practicing, neither practicing nor not practicing, up to not grasping is also not grasped—this is called the bodhisattva's vast functioning of the samādhi of non-grasping, not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' For this reason they are able not to realize emptiness. Furthermore, the two vehicles lack vows and practice to support emptiness, so upon entering emptiness they realize it; bodhisattvas support emptiness with great vows and great practice, so upon entering emptiness they do not realize it. Question: The Treatise states: 'In the cause it is called prajñā; upon reaching Buddhahood it is conversely called sarvajñā.' How can it also be said that at the sixth bhūmi it is called prajñā, and upon reaching the seventh bhūmi, prajñā being purified, it is conversely called skillful means? Answer: As explained before: at the time of the sixth bhūmi, the essence of prajñā is strong and the function of skillful means is weak; because its essence is strong, it is marvelous in quiet contemplation, so in contemplating emptiness it is without attachment; because its function is weak, it is not yet able to engage with existence right within emptiness without stagnation in existence. When reaching the seventh bhūmi, the essence and function are fully equal: being able to contemplate emptiness without taint, one is immediately able to engage with existence without attachment; hence it is called the stage of equalizing concentration and wisdom. In the stage of equalizing concentration and wisdom, the functioning of prajñā is skillful, so it is said to 'turn'; thus from the eighth bhūmi onward, both wisdoms are equally skillful. When reaching the stage of Buddhahood, both wisdoms equally turn: real wisdom conversely becomes sarvajñā, which means all-knowledge; skillful wisdom conversely becomes knowledge of all aspects. Question: If upon reaching the fruit they conversely become the two gnoses, then in the cause they are equally named the two wisdoms; why did you say earlier that prajñā is called wisdom, while skillful means is not called wisdom? Answer: The designations in cause and fruit each have their meaning. In the door of the fruit, illuminating all empty objects is named all-knowledge, and illuminating all existing objects is named knowledge of all aspects; both are named after the cognitive objects, so it is fitting to designate both as gnosis. In the door of the cause, real wisdom is based on the cognitive object, while skillful means is considered according to function; hence they cannot both be named wisdom. Question: If so, why are the bodhisattva's wisdom of the path and wisdom of the aspects of the path both called wisdom? Answer: Wisdom in the cause itself has many approaches, and the designations are various. Wisdom of the path and wisdom of the aspects of the path are also named after cognitive objects, so it is fitting to designate both as wisdom.

Question: If so, one should only speak of wisdom of the path and wisdom of the aspects of the path, which upon reaching the fruit conversely become all-knowledge and knowledge of all aspects. Why speak of prajñā and skillful means conversely becoming the two gnoses? Answer: The Treatise states: 'In the cause it is called prajñā, which conversely is named sarvajñā. In principle, skillful means in the cause conversely is named knowledge of all aspects.' That the two wisdoms conversely become the two gnoses goes without saying. Question: The Treatise states: 'Prajñā conversely becomes sarvajñā.' Where does it say that skillful means conversely becomes knowledge of all aspects? Answer: Prajñā is called wisdom, which is a name for illuminating cognitive objects; all-knowledge in the stage of the fruit is also named from illuminating cognitive objects. The two names correspond to each other, which is why it is said that in the cause it is called prajñā and in the fruit it is called all-knowledge. Skillful means is designated with respect to function, whereas knowledge of all aspects is named from cognitive objects; the two meanings differ, so the sūtras and treatises do not say that skillful means conversely becomes knowledge of all aspects. However, although skillful means is not named from cognitive objects, its essence truly illuminates existence, so it conversely becomes the knowledge of all aspects. Even though there is no explicit text, in principle and logic it must be so. Furthermore, in the cause they are called provisional and real wisdom, and in the fruit they are called provisional and real gnosis, which can also be taken as that text.