大乘玄論 4.7

4.7

論境智門第四。夫智不孤生，必由境發，故境為智本；境非獨立，因智受名，故智為境本。是以非境無以發智，非智無以照境。非境無以發智，故境為能發、智為所發；非智無以照境，故智為能照、境為所照。境為能發，為智所照，即境能為智所；智為能照，為境所發，則智能為境所。境之所照能發於智，故境所為智能；智之所發能照於境，故智所為境能。不得言境前智後，亦非智前境後，亦非一時，唯得名為因緣境智也。問：以何為境而能發智？答如來常依二諦說法，故二諦名教；能生二智，故二諦名境。關中曇影法師《注中論》，親承什公音旨。什公云「傳吾業者，寄在道融、曇影、僧叡乎。」影公序二諦云「真諦故無有，以俗諦故無無。真故無有，雖無而有；俗故無無，雖有而無。雖無而有，不滯於無；雖有而無，不累於有。不滯於無，故斷無見滅；不累於有，故常著氷消。寂此諸邊，故名為中。」詳此意者，真故無有，雖無而有，即是不動真際而建立諸法；俗故無無，雖有而無，即是不壞假名而說實相。以不壞假名而說實相，雖曰假名，宛然實相；不動真際建立諸法，雖曰真際，宛然諸法。以真際宛然諸法，故不滯於無；諸法宛然實相，即不累於有。不累於有故不常，不滯於無故非斷，即中道也。由斯二諦發生二智，以了諸法實相，故生漚和波若；以悟實相諸法，故生波若漚和。漚和波若而宛然漚和，波若漚和而宛然波若。以漚和宛然波若，故不著於有；波若宛然漚和，故不滯於無。不累於有，故常著氷消；不滯於無，故斷無見滅。寂此諸邊，故名中觀。是以二諦中道還發生二智中觀，二智中觀還照二諦中道，故境稱於智、智稱於境，境名智境、智名境智也。二境既正明、二智義明，故須約境以辨於智。二乘不得二智者，良由不見此二諦；不得正觀者，亦由不見二諦即是中道故也。問：波若照諸法實相、漚和照實相諸法，即波若不照諸法、漚和不照實相，將非限局聖心失無礙妙用？答：波若為漚和之體、漚和是波若之用，體鑒實相、用照諸法，故開此二門，即智無不圓、照無不盡。若同照實相並鑒諸法，即二境不分、兩慧相監。問：舊說亦然，與今何異？答：波若體非不能照諸法，但用既照，不煩波若照耳。若用既照諸法而體復照者，即一境二照，亦應二境一智生，是故二慧不並照也。舊義波若不能照諸法、漚和不能照實相，雖復並觀，智用恒別，即是格局聖心、封執二見。問：前云波若不著有、方便不證空，後何故復云漚和涉有不著、波若鑒空無滯？答：不著空者，凡有二義：一者波若照實相，實相既無所依，即波若亦無所著，此是般若之力。二不證空名為不著，此方便之力。不著有者亦具二義：一者波若入空，故不著有；二者方便為波若所導，故能涉有不著，亦是波若之力也。是故經中又言「波若不著空，方便不著有。」或言「波若不著有，方便不證空。」各舉一門，義無違背。問：若波若照空、漚和鑒有，即二智皆照，何言波若無知？答：波若雖知而無所知，雖無所知而無所不知。問：波若知實相，故言無知。亦即知波若，故言無知。答：既約二境分於二智，即波若知實相故言無知；不得云知波若故無知，若知波若即是方便。問：波若契實相，即內外並冥、緣觀俱寂。方便照俗，何能知此波若？答：波若無知而知，為方便所知。知而無知，即方便不知。問：波若無知而知、知而無知，方便亦得爾不？答：指實為權、指權為實，權實不二，亦得爾也。不二而二，則無知而知名為方便，知而無知稱為波若。問：波若照空具知與無知，方便鑒有何不然耶？答：二而不二，皆具二也。不二而二，波若所知之境是空、能知之智為有，故具知與無知；而方便能知所知、境智皆有。故波若有知有無知，而方便但有知也。問：云何波若具知無知？答：波若知實相，即緣觀俱寂，是故無知；而境智宛然，故不失知，此無知而知、知則無知。問：若爾，與開善至忘彌存何異？答：彼彌存之義，終非至忘；至忘之義，終不彌存。今以彌存為至忘、至忘為彌存，故為異也。問：舊義亦然，與今何異？答：彼至忘時，智終不作境、境終不成智，則是境智二見。若智即是境，境既無知，智亦應爾；若境則是智，在智既照，境亦應然。今對此一門，略敘大乘樞要、觀行淵府。經云「貪欲則是道，恚癡亦復然。如是三法中，無量諸佛道。」貪欲則是道者，然貪欲本來寂滅自性清淨，即是實相，如斯了悟便名波若。豈有實相之境異波若觀耶？故境智不二。照貪欲雖本寂滅，而於眾生宛然有貪，便名方便。傷其無貪謂貪，而欲拔之故，此方便即名大悲。欲令悟貪無貪、與無貪樂，即此大悲復名慈也。故一句觀行，具境智二門、慈悲兩觀。初信此法便名十信，次解此法稱為十解，乃至證悟究竟了達名為佛心，豈非一貪觀中具諸佛道？次論二經。問：《大品》明實相不生不滅能生波若，《涅槃》云十二因緣不生不滅發於觀智。二經同釋境智，有何異耶？答：略明四句，一開因果開境智、二合因果合境智、三開因果合境智、四開境智合因果。開因果開境智者，則波若所明，因有道慧、道種慧，果則一切智、一切種智，謂開因果也。實相能生波若，則實智之境；世諦能生方便，為權智之境，謂開境智也。次合因果合境智者，如《涅槃》五性之義：一因性、二因因性、三果性、四果果性、五非因非果性。此之五性，更無二體。十二因緣能生之義則名為境，所發之義便名觀智，觀智明了故稱菩提，菩提無累即是果果。然十二因緣本性清淨，未曾因果，亦非境智，故名非因非果。然此五性既無二體，則轉境為智、反因為果，如斯因果未曾因果，故名合因果合境智也。三合因果開境智者，亦如《大品》以波若為因、薩婆若為果，因果更無二體，轉波若之因為薩婆若果，故什公云「薩婆若則是老波若」，此名合因果也。開境智者，實相雖能生波若，而不轉實相之境為波若，亦不轉世諦之境為方便之智，故名開境智。次開因果合境智者，亦如《涅槃》轉境為智，故名合境智。而有因與因因、果與果果，故云開因果也。問：既轉境為智亦轉因為果，即應同境智俱合。答：經開因與因因、果與果果，故言開因果。而取境智並作因因之名，沒境智之稱，故言合境智。問：二經何故開合不同？答：《涅槃》就十二因緣辨境智義，欲明眾生皆有佛性。眾生即是十二因緣，因緣能生即境、所生即智，更無二體，故明合境智也。《大品》辨實相生波若，能生即是無為波若、所生即是有為觀智，故不轉無為波若成有為波若，故開境智也。此皆不二而二，故二經不同；若二而不二，更無異也。

Section 4: Treatise on cognitive object and gnosis. Now, gnosis does not arise in isolation; it necessarily arises from a cognitive object. Therefore, the cognitive object is the root of gnosis. A cognitive object does not stand independently; it receives its designation due to gnosis. Therefore, gnosis is the root of the cognitive object. For this reason, without a cognitive object there is no way to give rise to gnosis; without gnosis there is no way to illuminate a cognitive object. Since without a cognitive object there is no way to give rise to gnosis, the cognitive object is the agent of generation and gnosis is what is generated. Since without gnosis there is no way to illuminate a cognitive object, gnosis is the agent of illumination and the cognitive object is what is illuminated. That the cognitive object is the agent of generation and is illuminated by gnosis means that the cognitive object can be the object of gnosis; that gnosis is the agent of illumination and is generated by the cognitive object means that gnosis can be the object of the cognitive object. The cognitive object's being illuminated can generate gnosis, so the cognitive object's objectivity is gnosis's agency; gnosis's being generated can illuminate the cognitive object, so gnosis's objectivity is the cognitive object's agency. One cannot say that the cognitive object is prior and gnosis is posterior, nor that gnosis is prior and the cognitive object is posterior, nor that they are simultaneous; they can only be called cognitive object and gnosis through dependent co-arising.

Question: Taking what as the cognitive object can generate gnosis?

Answer: The Tathāgata constantly teaches the Dharma relying on the two truths; therefore, the two truths are called the teaching. Because they can generate the two gnoses, the two truths are called cognitive objects. Dharma Master Tanying of the Guanzhong region, in his *Commentary on the Madhyamakaśāstra*, directly received the oral instructions of Kumārajīva. Kumārajīva said, "The ones to transmit my undertaking are entrusted to Daorong, Tanying, and Sengrui!" Master Ying's preface on the two truths states:

"Due to ultimate truth there is no existence; due to conventional truth there is no non-existence. Being ultimate, there is no existence; yet though non-existent, it exists. Being conventional, there is no non-existence; yet though existent, it is non-existent. Though non-existent, it exists, so one is not stagnant in non-existence. Though existent, it is non-existent, so one is not burdened by existence. Not being stagnant in non-existence, views of annihilation and non-existence are extinguished. Not being burdened by existence, eternalistic clinging melts like ice. Quieting these extremes is therefore called the Middle."

Examining this meaning: "Being ultimate, there is no existence; yet though non-existent, it exists" is precisely establishing all phenomena without stirring from the true limit. "Being conventional, there is no non-existence; yet though existent, it is non-existent" is precisely expounding the real mark without destroying conventional designations. By expounding the real mark without destroying conventional designations, although called conventional designations, they are distinctly the real mark. By establishing all phenomena without stirring from the true limit, although called the true limit, it is distinctly all phenomena. Because the true limit is distinctly all phenomena, one is not stagnant in non-existence. Because all phenomena are distinctly the real mark, one is not burdened by existence. Not burdened by existence, it is not eternal; not stagnant in non-existence, it is not annihilated. This is the Middle Way.

From these two truths, the two gnoses are generated: because one understands the real mark of all phenomena, skillful means [that is] prajñā is generated; because one awakens to all phenomena as the real mark, prajñā [that is] skillful means is generated. Skillful means [that is] prajñā is distinctly skillful means; prajñā [that is] skillful means is distinctly prajñā. Because skillful means is distinctly prajñā, one does not cling to existence; because prajñā is distinctly skillful means, one is not stagnant in non-existence. Not being burdened by existence, eternalistic clinging melts like ice; not being stagnant in non-existence, views of annihilation and non-existence are extinguished. Quieting these extremes is therefore called the contemplation of the Middle. Therefore, the two truths as the Middle Way in turn generate the contemplation of the Middle as the two gnoses; the contemplation of the Middle as the two gnoses in turn illuminates the two truths as the Middle Way. Hence the cognitive object corresponds to gnosis, and gnosis corresponds to the cognitive object: the cognitive object is called the cognitive object of gnosis, and gnosis is called the gnosis of the cognitive object. Once the two cognitive objects are properly clarified, the meaning of the two gnoses is clarified; therefore one must determine gnosis with reference to the cognitive object. That the [practitioners of the] two vehicles do not attain the two gnoses is truly because they do not see these two truths; that they do not attain correct contemplation is also because they do not see that the two truths are precisely the Middle Way.

Question: If prajñā illuminates the real mark of all phenomena and skillful means illuminates all phenomena as the real mark, then prajñā does not illuminate all phenomena and skillful means does not illuminate the real mark. Would this not restrict the noble mind and forfeit its unhindered, subtle function?

Answer: Prajñā is the essence of skillful means, and skillful means is the function of prajñā. The essence discerns the real mark, and the function illuminates all phenomena. Therefore, opening these two gates, gnosis is completely round and illumination is entirely exhaustive. If they both illuminated the real mark together and jointly discerned all phenomena, then the two cognitive objects would not be distinguished, and the two wisdoms would oversee each other.

Question: The old explanations also say this; how does it differ from the present [view]?

Answer: It is not that the essence of prajñā cannot illuminate all phenomena; it is simply that since function already illuminates them, it does not trouble prajñā to illuminate them. If the function already illuminates all phenomena and the essence also illuminates them, then there would be two illuminations of a single cognitive object, and likewise one gnosis should arise from two cognitive objects; therefore the two wisdoms do not illuminate simultaneously. In the old meaning, prajñā could not illuminate all phenomena, and skillful means could not illuminate the real mark; although contemplating together, the functions of gnosis were constantly separate. This was precisely to confine the noble mind and cling rigidly to dual views.

Question: Previously it was said that prajñā does not cling to existence and skillful means does not realize emptiness; why later is it also said that skillful means engages existence without clinging, and prajñā discerns emptiness without stagnation?

Answer: Not clinging to emptiness generally has two meanings: first, prajñā illuminates the real mark, and since the real mark has nothing to rely upon, prajñā also has no clinging—this is the power of prajñā. Second, not realizing emptiness is called not clinging—this is the power of skillful means. Not clinging to existence also possesses two meanings: first, prajñā enters emptiness, so it does not cling to existence; second, skillful means is guided by prajñā, so it can engage existence without clinging—this is also the power of prajñā. Therefore, the sūtra also says, "Prajñā does not cling to emptiness; skillful means does not cling to existence." Or it says, "Prajñā does not cling to existence; skillful means does not realize emptiness." Each raises one gate, and their meanings do not contradict each other.

Question: If prajñā illuminates emptiness and skillful means discerns existence, then both gnoses illuminate; why is it said that prajñā has no knowing?

Answer: Although prajñā knows, it has nothing known; although it has nothing known, there is nothing it does not know.

Question: Prajñā knows the real mark, so it is said to have no knowing. Is it also because it knows prajñā that it is said to have no knowing?

Answer: Since the two gnoses are distinguished with reference to the two cognitive objects, it is because prajñā knows the real mark that it is said to have no knowing. One cannot say that because it knows prajñā it has no knowing; if it knows prajñā, that is skillful means.

Question: When prajñā tallies with the real mark, internal and external are both obscure, and the object and contemplation are both silent. When skillful means illuminates the conventional, how can it know this prajñā?

Answer: Prajñā knows through non-knowing, and is known by skillful means. Knowing yet having no knowing, it is not known by skillful means.

Question: Prajñā knows through non-knowing and has no knowing while knowing; can skillful means also be like this?

Answer: Pointing to the real as the provisional, pointing to the provisional as the real, the provisional and the real are non-dual, so it can also be like this. Non-dual yet dual, knowing through non-knowing is called skillful means, and having no knowing while knowing is called prajñā.

Question: Prajñā illuminates emptiness and possesses both knowing and non-knowing; why is skillful means discerning existence not like this?

Answer: Dual yet non-dual, both possess both. Non-dual yet dual, the cognitive object known by prajñā is empty, while the gnosis that can know is existent; therefore it possesses both knowing and non-knowing. But for skillful means, both the knower and the known, cognitive object and gnosis, are existent. Therefore prajñā has knowing and has non-knowing, while skillful means only has knowing.

Question: How does prajñā possess both knowing and non-knowing?

Answer: When prajñā knows the real mark, object and contemplation are both silent; therefore it is non-knowing. Yet cognitive object and gnosis are distinct, so it does not lose knowing. This is knowing through non-knowing, and knowing is non-knowing.

Question: If so, how does this differ from Kaishan's 'supreme oblivion while being ever preserved'?

Answer: His meaning of 'being ever preserved' is ultimately not 'supreme oblivion'; his meaning of 'supreme oblivion' is ultimately not 'being ever preserved'. Now, taking 'being ever preserved' as 'supreme oblivion', and 'supreme oblivion' as 'being ever preserved'—hence it is different.

Question: The old meaning was also like this; how does it differ from the present [view]?

Answer: At the time of their 'supreme oblivion', gnosis ultimately does not become the cognitive object, and the cognitive object ultimately does not become gnosis; thus these are the two views of cognitive object and gnosis. If gnosis is precisely the cognitive object, then since the cognitive object has no knowing, gnosis should also be like that. If the cognitive object is precisely gnosis, then since in gnosis there is illumination, the cognitive object should also be like that.

Now, regarding this single gate, we briefly set forth the pivot of the Mahāyāna and the profound storehouse of contemplative practice. A sūtra says: "Greedy desire is precisely the Way; anger and delusion are also like this. Within these three phenomena are the immeasurable ways of all buddhas." That greedy desire is precisely the Way means that greedy desire is originally quiet extinction and inherently pure in its own nature—it is precisely the real mark. Awakening to it like this is called prajñā. How could the cognitive object of the real mark be different from the contemplation of prajñā? Therefore cognitive object and gnosis are non-dual. Illuminating that although greedy desire is originally quiet extinction, yet for sentient beings greedy desire distinctly exists—this is called skillful means. Feeling sorrow that they take non-desire to be desire, and wishing to pull them out of it—this skillful means is called great compassion. Wishing to make them awaken to the non-desire of desire and giving them the bliss of non-desire—this great compassion is again called benevolence. Thus a single phrase of contemplative practice possesses the two gates of cognitive object and gnosis, and the two contemplations of benevolence and compassion. Initially having faith in this Dharma is called the ten faiths; next understanding this Dharma is called the ten understandings; up to realizing, awakening, and completely penetrating it, which is called the Buddha mind. How could all the buddha ways not be fully present within the single contemplation of greed?

Next, we discuss the two sūtras.

Question: The *Pañcaviṃśati* clarifies that the unborn and unextinguished real mark can generate prajñā; the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* states that the unborn and unextinguished twelve links of dependent origination generate contemplative gnosis. Both sūtras equally explain cognitive object and gnosis; what difference is there?

Answer: We briefly clarify four propositions: 1. Opening cause and effect, opening cognitive object and gnosis; 2. Combining cause and effect, combining cognitive object and gnosis; 3. Opening cause and effect, combining cognitive object and gnosis; 4. Opening cognitive object and gnosis, combining cause and effect.

As for opening cause and effect and opening cognitive object and gnosis: in what is clarified by prajñā, in the cause there is wisdom of the path and wisdom of the aspects of the path, and in the result there is all-knowledge and knowledge of all aspects—this is called opening cause and effect. The real mark can generate prajñā, being the cognitive object of real gnosis; conventional truth can generate skillful means, being the cognitive object of provisional gnosis—this is called opening cognitive object and gnosis.

Next, combining cause and effect and combining cognitive object and gnosis: like the meaning of the five natures in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*: 1. causal nature, 2. cause-of-cause nature, 3. fruition nature, 4. fruition-of-fruition nature, 5. neither-cause-nor-fruition nature. These five natures have no distinct substance. The twelve links of dependent origination, in their sense of being able to generate, are called the cognitive object; in their sense of being generated, they are called contemplative gnosis. Because contemplative gnosis is clear, it is called bodhi; bodhi without burden is precisely the fruition of fruition. However, the twelve links of dependent origination are inherently pure, never having been cause or effect, nor cognitive object or gnosis; therefore they are called neither cause nor fruition. Since these five natures have no distinct substance, the cognitive object is transformed into gnosis, and the cause is turned into the fruition. Such cause and effect have never been cause and effect; therefore this is called combining cause and effect and combining cognitive object and gnosis.

Third, combining cause and effect and opening cognitive object and gnosis: also like the *Pañcaviṃśati* taking prajñā as cause and sarvajñā as fruition. Cause and effect have no distinct substance; the cause of prajñā is transformed into the fruition of sarvajñā. Hence Kumārajīva said, "Sarvajñā is simply old prajñā." This is called combining cause and effect. As for opening cognitive object and gnosis: although the real mark can generate prajñā, it does not transform the cognitive object of the real mark into prajñā, nor does it transform the cognitive object of conventional truth into the gnosis of skillful means; therefore it is called opening cognitive object and gnosis.

Next, opening cause and effect and combining cognitive object and gnosis: also like the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* transforming the cognitive object into gnosis, which is called combining cognitive object and gnosis; yet it has cause and cause-of-cause, fruition and fruition-of-fruition, which is called opening cause and effect.

Question: Since it transforms the cognitive object into gnosis and also turns cause into fruition, it should be that cognitive object and gnosis are both combined.

Answer: The sūtra opens cause and cause-of-cause, fruition and fruition-of-fruition, so it is said to open cause and effect. But taking cognitive object and gnosis together as the name 'cause-of-cause', submerging the designations 'cognitive object' and 'gnosis', it is said to combine cognitive object and gnosis.

Question: Why do the two sūtras differ in opening and combining?

Answer: The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* distinguishes the meaning of cognitive object and gnosis with reference to the twelve links of dependent origination, intending to clarify that sentient beings all have buddha-nature. Sentient beings are precisely the twelve links of dependent origination: that dependent origination can generate is the cognitive object; that which is generated is gnosis. There are no two distinct substances, so it clarifies combining cognitive object and gnosis. The *Pañcaviṃśati* distinguishes that the real mark generates prajñā: that which can generate is unconditioned prajñā, and that which is generated is conditioned contemplative gnosis; hence it does not transform unconditioned prajñā into conditioned prajñā, so it opens cognitive object and gnosis. These are all non-dual yet dual, hence the two sūtras differ; if dual yet non-dual, there is no difference at all.