大乘玄論 4.6.2

4.6.2

此南方尚禪師義也。 復有人言，實相即真諦理，會此理煩惱盡故，離生滅、同真如、等法性，無為而無不為，即實相是境也。 此亦南方成實師義。 今辨《釋論》意，可得有五句文：一者因中說果，如名實相為波若； 二果中說因，如說波若為實相； 三當因說因，實相非波若； 四當果說果，波若非實相； 五非因非果，故論釋實相，文云「因是一邊、果是一邊，離此二邊名為中道。 緣是一邊、觀是一邊，離此二邊名為中道。 」故知實相未曾因果亦非境智，而隨緣逐義有上四句不同，眾師不應汎引隻文以通圓旨也。 問：舊云實慧、方便慧，普皆稱慧，何故二道不得俱名波若？ 答：外國名波若，此方翻為慧。 梵本名漚和，此土云方便。 譯經之人欲定彼此方言，故分於二道。 若並云波若，即兩名相監，故叡公述羅什譯經之體云「故音失者，正之以天竺。 秦言謬者，定之以字義。 不可變者，即而書之。 」故知二道不得俱稱波若。 問：若爾，舊何得云實慧、方便慧？ 答：欲明實法方便俱有鑒照之功，故悉稱慧耳。 此是義釋，非立二道之名； 立二道之名，但云慧與方便。 問：何故波若名慧，方便不名慧耶？ 答：通而言之，波若既照得名為慧，方便亦照亦得稱慧； 方便既巧，波若亦巧。 但立此二名，欲相開避，隱顯互說，波若顯其照名、隱其巧稱，方便顯其巧稱、隱其照名。 所以然者，波若從實相境立名，又當其體，故顯照隱巧； 方便不從照俗境立名，但取巧用，故顯巧沒照。 又慧名照空，波若既是空慧，所以名慧； 方便涉有，不得名慧。 問：波若照空名慧，方便涉有應稱為智。 答：如前釋之。 方便非不照有，正以取巧能，故不云智也。 問：何以知波若為體、方便為用？ 答：《釋論》第百卷云「問：上已付囑竟，今何故復囑累？ 答：上說波若體竟，今說方便用。 」故波若為體、方便為用。 論又云「波若與方便本體是一，而隨義有異，譬如金為種種物。 」此明權實一體，約義分二：金喻波若，波若為體； 金上之巧，譬於方便，方便為用。 問：波若何故為體？ 方便何故為用？ 答：實相為本，波若照實相故，波若亦為本，所以為體。 諸法為末，方便照諸法故，方便為用。 問：何以知實相為本？ 答：論初卷云「三悉檀可破，第一義悉檀不可破，滅一切言語、過一切戲論。 」第一義悉檀即實相。 論又云「除實相以外，一切皆名為魔。 」故實相為本。 又迷實相故有六道，悟實相即有三乘，故實相為迷悟之原，所以稱本也。 此是對虛妄名之為實，若無虛妄即亦無實，如前云「非境非智、非果非因。 」不同舊宗有天然實相境也。 問：若波若為本，即波若勝、方便劣。 何故六地名波若，七地稱方便？ 答：金雖是體，未作巧物則金為劣也。 制金為巧，即巧勝於金。 六地雖得波若之體，未得妙用，故波若則劣； 至七地時，波若妙用，故稱為方便勝也。 是以論云「波若清淨反名方便。 」此言反者，照空之慧未能涉有，故空慧未巧，但名波若； 照空之慧即能涉有，故轉名方便。 問曰：既反名方便，應失波若之名，便無二慧。 所以然者，得波若時未有方便，得方便即無復波若。 答：二慧更無別，體巧之空慧即名方便波若，空慧之巧稱波若方便。 譬如金巧巧金，巧不失金、金未有巧也。 問：空慧有二巧，一照空不著、二即能涉有無滯，二巧之中以何為方便？ 答：波若略有四力，一者照實相、二者無所著、三者斷諸惑、四者能導方便，此四用即是次第。 由不見一切相而見實相，實相既無所依即波若亦無所著，以無所著眾累寂然，以無累故能導方便令涉有無染。 若然者，照空及於空無著，是波若之力，故囑空慧； 即空慧而能涉有，此囑方便，故兩巧不同。 問：方便涉有具幾力耶？ 答：一有照境之功、二有不證空力、三起行之用。

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.